Defending Against a Ticket by Alleging a Lack of Evidence

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

I am not here to dispute if I did or did not commit the infraction; I am here to ask members that are more legally educated than myself if there are any discrepancies within the provided discovery that would lead to a not-committed finding. I am a college student that can not afford to retain an attorney at the moment and enjoy the challenge of contesting a citation.

While looking through the discovery, two things jumped out at me: the lack of SMD certification in the discovery and lack of information in the officers report. I should also point out that I received the citation from a Gig Harbor police but it was outside of Gig Harbor city limits.

Lack of SMD Certification:

I believe that my case hinges on a lack of evidence provided in the discovery that I received. Within IRLJ 3.1 (b), it states "(2) a copy of video or photographic evidence the prosecutor proposes to introduce at trial, unless in reply to the discovery request the prosecutor provides the address to a website where such evidence is accessible to the defendant." It also states "If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or justification, fails to provide any portion of the discovery prior to the day of the hearing, the portion of discovery not provided shall be suppressed."

Below, I have provided the entire discovery that I received. As you can see, there is not certification concerning design and construction of SMDs or an address to a website where such evidence is accessible to me. On my own, I went in to the court and asked if I could see the certification log. I was told "what you received in your discovery is what the officer submitted to us and what we have on file."

Is SMD certification required to be provided in the discovery?

Officers Report:

The officers states the that he was operating the radar in moving mode; however, he does not state where he was in relation to my vehicle. Was he moving Eastbound (same direction as me) or Westbound (opposite direction).

The correct answer is that he was moving Westbound, opposite direction of me.

Is there anything to fight here?


Also, 3600 E Bay Dr NW is where the officer pulled me over, not where he operated the SMD. E Bay Dr NW is a winding road that is densely populated with trees. If I was, as he stated, traveling at 65 MPH and he was going the opposite direction of me, he would have lost sight for, at minimum, a minute to turn around and catch up to me.

The officer noted "Defendant claimed that he had just pulled out of a side street and had not passed me, even though he clearly had sped by me."

How is he certain that it was me when he lost sight of me for over a minute? I was driving a silver sedan that could have easily been anyone else.

Lastly, the officer told me that he had "cleared his radar screen" when I asked to see it. Is there anything I can do with that?

Thank you for any help in advance. I'd like to see what one of the Washington experts has to say here!


http://i43.tinypic.com/2qt8i01.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/2wmqujb.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/15mg1w2.jpg

Page 4 of 4 is just the date and place.

- - - Updated - - -

After look around some more, here is what I came up with:

"Your Honor, I move to suppress the speed readings per IRLJ 6.6 and move to dismiss with prejudice for lack of evidence.
A copy of the certificate was not provided to me, as requested in my discovery, and is not on file with the court. "

You should edit your scans to remove personally identifying information.

Quote:

---

Quoting JRaymond

---

I believe that my case hinges on a lack of evidence provided in the discovery that I received. Within IRLJ 3.1 (b), it states "(2) a copy of video or photographic evidence the prosecutor proposes to introduce at trial, unless in reply to the discovery request the prosecutor provides the address to a website where such evidence is accessible to the defendant." It also states "If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or justification, fails to provide any portion of the discovery prior to the day of the hearing, the portion of discovery not provided shall be suppressed."

Below, I have provided the entire discovery that I received. As you can see, there is not certification concerning design and construction of SMDs or an address to a website where such evidence is accessible to me.

---

Why do you believe that there is video or photographic evidence to be disclosed?

Quote:

---

Quoting JRaymond

---

Is SMD certification required to be provided in the discovery?

---

You are already apparently familiar with IRLJ 6.6, which dictates when a SMD certificate must be on file with the court. If the police officer does not comply with that rule, by all means move for dismissal. Note that under subrule (c) the court has discretion to grant a continuance for the purpose of obtaining evidence of certification. Note also, the officer's visual estimation of your speed can constitute a basis for conviction, assuming a proper foundation is laid.

I don't think you will get anywhere trying to argue that the officer confused your vehicle with somebody else's, but I won't be the judge.

Thank you for your response. Case was dismissed since the SMD certificate was not on file with the court.