Finding Discrepancies to Defeat a Speeding Ticket

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 the members of this community 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.

I had court today (3/3) for this citation and I thought that I had a slam dunk case. I had not received a single portion of my discovery and I began by making a motion to suppress the affidavit of speed/radar. Before I could finish, the judge interrupted me and stated that he had something from the attorney stating that the discovery was mailed on 2/24. This confused me because, like I said, I had not received it. I quickly thought in my head and determined that the 24th was over 7 days ago. The judge asked if I had anything else to say and I quickly made a motion for continuance to reattempt to obtain discovery and he granted it.

However, what I forgot was that February only had 28 days, so the 24th to the 3rd is exactly 7 days. It is reasonable to believe that I would have have received the discovery on the 25th (6 days), at the earliest. Per IRLJ 3.1 (b):

Quote:

---

If the prosecuting authority provides any portion of the discovery less than 7 days before the hearing, such untimely discovery shall be suppressed only upon a showing of prejudice in the presentation of the defendant's case.

---

Am I correct in assuming that it is too late to do anything about that now that the hearing is over and it will be past 7 days? If not, what can I do? If so, I'll move on to preparing for the next court date. Below is the discovery that was unknowingly mailed to my parents house (the address on my license).

Hopefully some of the experts can look this over and help me out! (Links to certification are at the bottom) Things that I have noticed thus far:

• He states "I observed ^ approaching my location in excess of the well posted speed limit" and "I obtained a high audio signal as the ^ entered the RADAR." He continues using this "^" symbol but he does not explain exactly what this "^" is referring to.
• He does not state a speed at which he visually estimated my vehicle; he simply states "I observed the vehicle receding my location in excess of the well posted speed limit."
• Why does he state "I observed the patrol reading match my speedometer reading" if he was in stationary mode? What exactly is the patrol reading?
• He states "It was checked at the beginning and end of my shift" and then later states "If the unit does not pass the test at the end of my shift, I will prepare a supplemental report for the court." It seems like these two things contradict each other. Did he test it at the end of his shift or is he planning to do it?
• He does not state when he was trained and qualified to use the RADAR. Do they need to be retrained and/or does he need to supply this information? Where is the proof of this? Is it hearsay?
• He states that his speedometer was certified on June 3rd 2010. Does it need to be re-certified/how often? Where is the proof of this? Hearsay?

EDIT: One more thing that I noticed is that he does not describe the road conditions. Was it raining? Was there other vehicles on the road? By the way he describes obtaining my speed, I believe that it is reasonable to believe that he was operating the device in Automatic mode. How is he certain that it was MY vehicle that he locked on to? Per the operation manual for his RADAR:

Quote:

---

ASD™ technology allows the operator to select a direction of traffic to monitor in stationary mode: in the same direction as the patrol vehicle, in the opposite direction, or in both directions. This selection can be made on either the front or rear antenna. Also, the operator can choose to monitor that fastest target traveling in the selected direction in addition to the strongest target.

---

So, what direction of traffic was he monitoring? What antenna was he using? Was he using it in fastest target/strongest target mode? I think this furthers my question how does he know it was my vehicle that his RADAR responded to.

I know that some of these may be a stretch, but I'm just attempting to draw attention to the little details that I noticed. Let me know if any of you see something else! Thank you for any assistance in advance.

http://i59.tinypic.com/ilbnn5.jpg

http://i61.tinypic.com/23svdzn.jpg

http://i57.tinypic.com/1182bdi.jpg

Links to Certification: https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearc...iceDisplay/700 and https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearc...tionPrint/2813

- - - Updated - - -

I think I may have something! He states that he checked the RADAR internally and externally; however, he does not state the results of this test. Did the test prove that the RADAR was working properly or not? He later states that the RADAR was was functioning properly and in good working condition, but based on what (foundation)? Just because he tested the RADAR does not mean that it is functioning properly.

Even if we assume that discovery sent to you seven days before the hearing were not provided to you at that time, you will have it well in advance of the rescheduled hearing and will not be able to claim prejudice due to the date it was provided. I would not be surprised if, should you research the issue, you find that depositing the documents in the mail with first class postage attached meets the definition of "provide". Perhaps somebody here has some authority on point.

The ^ is apparently a delta (Δ, for defendant).

You will note that this is a form document, so even if the information seems redundant (checking the speedometer to confirm that the car isn't moving) it's not surprising that it's included in a standard form report. The report does in fact state that the officer was trained and is qualified to operate the radar device.

Thank you for your response. I see that he is qualified to operate the radar device; however, he does not state that it is him that calibrates the radar nor does he state the result of said calibration. Who did the test? Did the test prove that the RADAR was working properly or not? He later states that the RADAR was was functioning properly and in good working condition, but based on what (foundation)? Just because the RADAR was tested does not mean that it is functioning properly.

Do you think I have a good argument here?

The calibration records are online at http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/smdhome.htm. I just checked your device and it was calibrated on 3/21/12 and not due for another until 3/21/14. It was done by WSP personnel.

If it says the device passed, it is assumed to be in good working order based on the tests being accepted as accurate if done correctly. If it was not working properly, it would not have passed the test.

The resident WA experts can take a look at everything when they stop in to see if there is anything for you to work with.

My court date is coming up on May 5. Can someone new take a look at this for me, please?

The only thing I see is he cannot claim he clocked you stationary and that his speedometer reflected the same speed as the radar. Further, saying he did not calibrate the unit at the end of his shift yet, then claiming he calibrated it clearly shows his statement was prepared and edited in a poor manner from memory and whether it contains the true facts surrounding the stop are suspicious when considered in tandem with his other testimony which is totally contradictory.

Thank you for your insight. I thought those were good points also. So, am I correct that I will be moving to suppress the officers affidavit based on an incompetent witness? What is the proper way to word it for use in court?

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason, I don't see an option to edit my posts where it normally is, so I am posting here.

I believe that I have found a lot of discrepancies but I don't know exactly what to do with them. I would appreciate comments/suggestions/corrections to the following statements and questions:

• The officer contradicts himself when he states that he was operating the RADAR in stationary mode and that he observed the patrol reading match his speedometer reading. Wouldn't my speed be 0 if he was in stationary mode?
  
• The officer again contradicts himself when he states that his RADAR was checked at the beginning and end of my shift and then states that if the unit does not pass the test at the end of his shift, he will prepare a supplemental report. How was it checked at the end of his shift if he clearly hasn't tested it yet?
  
• The officer states that he checked the RADAR internally and externally; however, he does not state the results of this test. Did the test prove that the RADAR was working properly or not? He later states that the RADAR was was functioning properly and in good working condition, but based on what (foundation)? Just because he tested the RADAR does not mean that it is functioning properly.
  
  Other small issues:
  
• The officer talks about testing/using the SMD, but does not specify personal knowledge. ER 602 problem here?
  
• The officer does not state that I was the only one in the radar beam.
  
• The officer does not mention date or time in his affidavit.
  
• The officer does not state a speed at which he visually estimated my vehicle.

The officer's report says your radar was due for calibration Jan 20th, while the cert docs for R2286 say it was due for calibration Mar 21. Given this error, and his many other errors in the report, it isn't clear to you that R2286 was actually the SMD he clocked you with.

You can also argue against his calibration of the device per ER 602 and ER 802, every statement he makes in the relevant section is in the first person, signifying personal knowledge except his statement regarding calibrating the device w/ the assigned tuning forks.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, for some reason your update hadn't shown up before I posted. Looks like you beat me to the hearsay aspect. In any case, you have quite a few possibly avenues of attack - if you provide the venue/judge, somebody might be able to help you order the motions you'll make by strength.

Thank you for the response MoMoney. The court is Upper Kittitas District Court with Judge Steve Houle. It's a very small court in Cle Elum.

Anyone else with some insight before my court date tomorrow?