Citation for Speeding and Unlawful Window Tint

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: washington.

I was cited for speeding......rcw 46.61.400. and because the officer was in such a good mood he also cited me for
glazed/tinted driver window....rcw 46.37.430

I won't bore you with specifics other than that it was a foggy day, there was heavy traffic and the wsp motorcycle trooper almost certainly lost site of my vehicle, seeing as i was pulled over about a mile down i5 after exit 192

I requested a discovery in a timely fashion but received it 1 day before my hearing.
I filed an infraction hearing subpoena request with the court clerk, but I did not actually subpoena any witnesses.
I motioned to suppress the officers sworn statement based on prejudice, but was not granted. The judge immediately granted the court's motion for a continuance.
I was pulled aside by who I think was the pa legal secretary. She offered to drop it to non moving cell phone violation or I could defer. I said I would like to think about it for now.

After my hearing, I filed another infraction hearing subpoena request. I listed the officer and wsp radar technician as witnesses to be subpoenaed with the clerks office. Since my court date is not yet set, they said i would receive the subpoena packets in the mail with the new court hearing notice.

Im not sure if I should subpoena at this point and if the trooper shows, try to accept the plea. I feel I can argue a few points, but need to find the right angle.

I will post my discovery asap.............

- - - Updated - - -

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...s/ticket1.jpeg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...ds/ticket.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...s/ticket2.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

Any help is mucho appreciated!

So you're only defense to the ticket is that you believe that the officer temporarily lost sight of your vehicle? You're not claiming that you weren't speeding or that he didn't accurately assess your speed?

No I definately wouldnt try to use that as a defense. I believe I was mistaken for the person he actually observed speeding. I have a few other points mentioned like fog & heavy traffic. he makes no mention of specifics in his statement

You can raise those points. They will be disregarded when he state he is positive it was your vehicle.

Disagreeable is almost correct. The officer has already stated that he/she is "100% percent certain" that yours was the vehicle. The officer won't be there, but that's enough for the court. The SODDI (some other dude did it) defense doesn't work very well with LIDAR -- especially at < 400 feet.

The good news is that there is NO evidence concerning your window tint. How was it measured? What device was used? When was that device last calibrated? Etc. My advice would be to move for dismissal of the tint charge due to lack of evidence. Then, if you're eligible, ask for a deferral on the other.

Good luck,
Barry

I'm confused Barry. He said he already had the hearing and is proceeding to trial. In the trial phase won't the officer be there to provide testimony?

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Disagreeable is almost correct. The officer has already stated that he/she is "100% percent certain" that yours was the vehicle. The officer won't be there, but that's enough for the court. The SODDI (some other dude did it) defense doesn't work very well with LIDAR -- especially at < 400 feet.

The good news is that there is NO evidence concerning your window tint. How was it measured? What device was used? When was that device last calibrated? Etc. My advice would be to move for dismissal of the tint charge due to lack of evidence. Then, if you're eligible, ask for a deferral on the other.

Good luck,
Barry

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

I'm confused Barry. He said he already had the hearing and is proceeding to trial. In the trial phase won't the officer be there to provide testimony?

---

Only if OP subpoenas the officer.

During the first hearing, OP moved for dismissal because he/she didn't receive the officer's report through discovery until the day before the hearing. The Court Rules allow for such a dismissal, but only upon a showing of prejudice. Apparently, OP failed to do that. However, the court did continue the case -- allowing OP more time to prepare. OP is also considering issuing a subpoena (which I HIGHLY discourage) to the officer. If OP does NOT subpoena the officer, there's less than about a 0.5% chance the officer will be there. In that case, the officer's report constitutes ALL the evidence against the defendant.

If OP subpoenas the officer, the sworn statement is NOT necessarily used at all. Now, if the officer does not show up, the case will be dismissed. However, if the officer does show, he WOULD be there to testify about the window tint -- at which time, assuming OP does not know enough to challenge the testimony on the basis of foundation or other grounds, OP will most likely be found guilty of BOTH offenses.

Out of hundreds of cases, I've only heard of one time where the officer showed up and the defendant still won -- it borders on "miraculous" -- which is why I highly recommend AGAINST subpoenaing the officer. Also, many courts will NOT allow a deferral if the officer is subpoenaed (to prevent people from subpoenaing the officer then, if the officer shows up, asking for a deferral).

Barry

Thx for clarification. I forgot WA courts operated that way.

Thank you for your response. Now I understand why it may be to my advantage to not subpoena the officer. I was offered a non moving cell phone ticket fine instead of proceeding further, I am wondering if that may have been in my best interest to accept it now.

There is one thing if I may point out that he states that each of the checks passed but no mention of "tests passing"
And is there any more required test that was not included in the statement? I thought i saw a 4th test that was required to check calibration with another known good smd?

I actually had a positive experience fighting a ticket, with officer showing up from subpoena before. But it was municipal court and I had a decent defense against it. But maybe it was a miracle.

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Only if OP subpoenas the officer.

During the first hearing, OP moved for dismissal because he/she didn't receive the officer's report through discovery until the day before the hearing. The Court Rules allow for such a dismissal, but only upon a showing of prejudice. Apparently, OP failed to do that. However, the court did continue the case -- allowing OP more time to prepare.

---

I don't understand how I failed to show prejudice. As soon as I took the stand I motioned for suppression of the officers sworn statement and dismissal based on prejudice for not receiving the discovery in a timely manner. and explained I wouldn't have been able to subpoena a smd expert. I figured this was enough, should I have objected when the judge granted the courts request for a continuance?

The judge said as far as he understands the rule, if I didn't recieve the dicovery at all, then I would be elegible for dismissal. But since I did recieve it the day before, the court was able to get away with a continuance.


I am really tempted to subpoena the officer and ask him specific questions regarding the stop. I actually have some questions written out already.