Contesting a Speeding Ticket in Washington

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

My wife got a ticket for speeding (written as 60 in 40mph zone) and we would like to contest it and save deferral for another day. It was in Benton County written by a county Sheriff. I filed a request for information from the Sheriff's office and got the desired information (SMD certification, officer training, officer's statement about the ticket) about the ticket and have now filed the discovery request with the prosecutor's office for the same information.

The good news - the officers statement did not include the distance at which the radar measurement was taken and the SMD certification certificate expired 3 months before the offense.
The bad news - the officers statement says he observed the vehicle was speeding and he tested the device with the assigned tuning forks at least 3 times that day (once after after stopping my wife).

The officer's statement is detailed but looks somewhat boilerplate to me but I guess that is expected. So - is there a chance of getting the ticket dismissed or just go with the deferral?

Thanks.

If your wife’s motion to suppress the expired radar certificate is successful, the visual estimate or tuning forks should not matter. Barry does a good job explaining about the visual estimate in this previous post. I was the OP in that thread and I won a dismissal due to lack of foundation (expired cert) and resulting lack of evidence, so in other words the visual estimate was not considered in the decision.

Just FYI for anyone reading the linked thread, if I had argued sufficiency first (which I almost did) then according to my best understanding the prima facie visual estimate might have been considered instead of radar and I might have lost. That’s not applicable to your wife’s case however, because she would have no reason to argue sufficiency.

Quote:

---

So - is there a chance of getting the ticket dismissed or just go with the deferral?

---

Can you redact your personal information and post what you received?

The posting permissions indicate that I can not post attachments. The text of the officer's statement is -

I WAS OPERATING THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE (TRAFFIC RADAR), NO# K38302 ON WEBBER CANYON RD
NEAR _BADGER RD, IN BENTON COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
TWO STEPS WERE USED TO DETERMINE THAT THIS SPEED MEASURING DEVICE WAS OPERATING PROPERLY. THE FIRST
WAS THE INTERNAL SELF TEST AND THE SECOND WAS THE EXTERNAL TEST USING THE TUNING FORK(S) ASSIGNED TO
THIS SPEED MEASURING DEVICE AS IDENTIFIED BY A NUMBER ON EACH TUNING FORK, 25529 AND 26756, WHICH
CORRESPONDS TO THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE’S NUMBER. THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE TESTED ACCURATE
BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY USING THE ABOVE METHODS WHEN PLACED INTO SERVICE AND WHEN TAKEN OUT
ON 3/28/14 (DATE). AT THE TIME OF THIS VIOLATION, THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE WAS BEING OPERATED IN THE
STATIONARY MODE WITH THE PATROL CAR STATIONARY. BASED UPON MY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, I VISUALLY
OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE MY LOCATION AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED, RECONGNIZED BY ME TO IN EXCESS OF
THE POSTED 40 MPH SPEED LIMIT. THE VEHICLE CONTINUED AT THIS HIGH RATE OF SPEED AS IT ENTERED THE AREA
MONITORED BY THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE. AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE ENTERED THIS AREA, THE
SPEED MEASURING DEVICE EMITTED A HIGH PITCHED, CLEAR, AND CONSTANT AUDIO (DOPLER) TONE INDICATIVE OF
SPEED AND CONFIRMING THE VISUAL OBSERVATION. THE DIGITAL READOUT DISPLAY INDICATED THE SPEED OF THE
DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE TO BE 66 MPH. THE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS MONITORED BY THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE
AT THE TIME OF THIS READING.
THE SPEED MEASURING DEVICE WAS ALSO TESTED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THIS VIOLATION AND TESTED
ACCURATE.
AT THE TIME OF THIS VIOLATION, I WAS CERTIFIED AND TRAINED TO OPERATE THIS SPEED MEASURING DEVICE.
ADDITIONAL:
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE
HEREIN ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE AND THAT I AM ENTERING MY AUTHORIZED USER ID AND PASSWORD TO
AUTHENTICATE IT.
Traffic:MED
Weather:OVRCAST
Roadway: DRY
Lighting: DAY
**************************************
The information contained in and attached to this citation/notice of infraction is incorporated by reference into this report.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON THAT ALL STATEMENTS MADE HEREIN ARE TRUE AND
ACCURATE AND THAT I AM ENTERING MY AUTHORIZED USER ID AND
PASSWORD TO AUTHENTICATE IT.
Signature: M. DENOMA-RAMOS #: BS78
Date and Place: 3/28/2014 County of BENTON

There is a certificate that he attended a training class on the device and a scanned copy of the "Certificate of Calibration" with a Calibration date of January 25, 2013 and a due date of January 25, 2014 and a cal interval of 12 months.

Is there anything else I can add without posting an attachment?

Also - thank you for the interest and help.

Please post the actual documents, not your translation. Thx.

Have your wife say this: "Your Honor, I move to suppress the readings of the SMD pursuant to IRLJ 6.6 (c). The calibration certificate supplied to me in discovery clearly states that this SMD device was due for re-certification on 1/25/14. Therefore, since the certification was three months out of date at the time of the alleged violation, it should be deemed 'insufficient'. I further move for dismissal due to lack of evidence. Thank you, Your Honor."

Quote:

---

The posting permissions indicate that I can not post attachments. The text of the officer's statement is -

---

You can post on imgur or any other photo upload site after removing your personal information. Then link the URL here. You'll want to include all parts (your ticket, the officer's affidavit and the certificate you said they sent you).

Thank you MoMoney. Here are the images -

http://jjf56.imgur.com/all/

Joe

I noticed a couple of oddities.

- The SMD for which they sent you a cert doesn't match the one the officer claimed to use.
- The tuning forks don't match either.

Now it could just be that they sent you the wrong cert - in which case, motioning to dismiss because of this particular stale cert or apparently mismatched tuning forks won't go anywhere. Go to the court-house and ask to see their certification logs that they've got filed with the court and look for the SMD the officer claimed to use in their affidavit. Let us know what you find.

Some other things that maybe the gurus can comment on the odds of (if any)
- Officer does not mention date or time in his affidavit.
- ER 602, the officer speaks about the testing of the SMD but doesn't specify personal knowledge.
- Officer does not state that you were the only one in the radars beam

Yep, he sent you the cert for the wrong radar it appears. Therefore you have no way of knowing the radar was under manufacturer agency calibration or proper officer calibration the day of the citation.

Some more information. I got additional documents from the Prosecuting Attorney today which are identical with the previously posted material but with a new calibration certificate. I have uploaded the new certificate to the previous photo site. This one has a better serial number, but the officer's number starts with 1 K and the certificate starts with 2 K's. The new certificate says it is good for 3 years and the SMD is still in calibration. I expect a small error on the serial numbers is not sufficient to have the ticket dismissed (or is it????) so we will go the deferral route.

Thanks for all the help from everyone.

Check with the courts if this cert is even on file with them. They fact that they had to send discovery to you twice suggest to me that they don't have their ducks in a row. When you verify that they don't, move to dismiss the cert provided since these certs are allowed to be used in lieu of an expert on the basis that they are properly filed. (see IRLJ 6.6)

The officer's report doesn't mention the make or model of the unit. Argue that you can't determine the particular model used from that report and have speed readings suppressed on those grounds. You can combine this to strengthen your argument about the use of two 'k's in the officer's affidavit.

I also looked over the cert you were provided with and it seemed a bit off. The certs need to follow, basically, a certain established format. Our cert states that the technician supervises "all" radar/lidar, but fails to specify his jurisdiction. Does he supervise all units in the US? In Canada? In the world? Or ever radar in his living room? Argue that the cert is insufficient as it fails to specify where his supervision begins and ends.

I've seen plenty of cases dismissed for mismatched tuning forks and bad certs, but it also depends on your judge. Whatever route you guys decide to go, best of luck!

Time to update with the results - Short Answer - Case Dismissed. Long (interesting) Answer -
Our court docket started with someone who used the "standard" How To Beat A Speeding Ticket website information. He subpoenaed the ticketing officer who was questioned by the Prosecutor to establish the speeding infraction. The defendant then started his examination by saying that he had hoped that the officer would not show up. Not a good sign. He then spent 15-20 minutes with rambling questions aimed to undermine details about the stop and the radar device to no effect. He then briefly tried to argue about how under some cases, radar might be inaccurate. When he finished up, the judge went after him by saying that all he did was raise speculation that did not shift the balance of weight of the case very much. The defendant than complained about raising reasonable doubt and it was explained that all that was needed was whether it was more probable that he was guilty or innocent, not reasonable doubt. Verdict - guilty. This guy had train wreck written all over his defense. I was surprised the judge let him go on when it was clear in the first couple of minutes what his plan was from the start. After this, the prosecutor left while the judge dealt with some deferred judgements on criminal cases before returning to us lowly speeders. When it was our turn, my wife was very nervous and asked the judge to let me speak for her, which he kindly did. I moved to suppress the radar reading since the officer did not identify the make or model and the serial number did not match the calibration certificate so there was no way to identify the device or its calibration. The prosecutor had not returned and the judge said that since there was no one from the state to object, he granted the motion and dismissed the case. I'm not sure how it would have turned out if the prosecutor was there, but we got the desired verdict.

Thanks to all on this site, including MoMoney and blewis for their advice, we would have not been prepared without you.

Congrats on your win!