Can an Officer Digitally Sign a Discovery Response in Washington

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Washington

I received discovery, and the officer has two places where he should've signed. I'm not sure that either meets the requirements of RCW 9A.72.085 to be a valid signature (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.72.085). I think the issue may come down to whether the officer entering his user ID and password qualifies as a digital signature under RCW 19.34.020(11) (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=19.34.020). I don't see a King County District Court local rule that governs a digital signature.

Would you please let me know what you think?

Also, here's the discovery and if you have any other ideas, I would be grateful if you'd share them. http://www.scribd.com/doc/234839353/...jjZhw97WCWYjLj .

The only other thought I have is that I received this discovery within 7 days of the hearing (but more than 3 days from the hearing), so I could try to make hay of this prejudicing my ability to mount a defense. Is that worth a shot?


********** #1 (on the back of the infraction; page 4 of the discovery linked above): **********

"Officer's report for citation/notice of infraction #XXXX
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: DOE J. [typed] #XXXX

Date and place: 4/25/2014 City/Town of Sammamish, County of KING"

*****My analysis: This isn't a signature because it's not handwritten. It's not a digital signature despite his entering his authorized user ID and password because that isn't the asymmetrical cryptosystem required by RCW 19.34.020(11). That section of the RCW doesn't say anything about a "user ID" or "password." And unless his first name is one-letter long, he didn't provide his full name so it fails RCW 9A.72.085(3)(d). (And he's not an attorney, so it fails subsection (c)).

********** #2 (officer's statement; page 1 of the discovery linked above): **********

"I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that all statements made herein are true and accurate and I am entering my authorized user ID and password to authenticate it.

Deputy J.J. Doe [typed] #XXXX King County Sheriff's Office
Dated: 04/25/14 King County, WA"

*****My analysis: The same as above, with him providing a middle initial here showing that "J. Doe" definitely isn't his full name. Since he appears to incorporate this statement by reference into the notice of infraction, a properly signed notice of infraction would save this. But he didn't properly sign the NOI, per the above.

Read through GR 30 (d)(2)(D), paying particular attention to (d)(2)(D)(ii). That should answer your questions.

I think that you are a bit misguided to hang you hat on this. These types of issues are mire technicalities that the courts usually overlooks.

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo

---

Read through GR 30 (d)(2)(D), paying particular attention to (d)(2)(D)(ii). That should answer your questions.

---

Outstanding find!

Agencies and courts rarely undertake the submission of forms without the input of attorneys and usually they are purloined from other agencies or even the state so that the language adheres to the law.

@kasb: You should consider actually offering a real defense, or, seeing what you can do to mitigate the harm done by a conviction (like asking for payment options, reduced fines, or whatever options might be available to you in WA).

jojo, Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Do you have any thoughts on what might work?

*****
As for the comment that courts usually overlook these arguments, that's not what I've seen first-hand as a spectator in various courts in WA. Perhaps things work differently in other courts?

The signature is valid and complies with RCW. Don't waste any further time on that. You should be looking at other technicalities.

On page 7.7 and 7.8 of the Kustom Eagle Operator's Manual, it describes how to use the RADAR device in "moving mode". Step 4 states:

Quote:

---

Quoting Kustom Eagle Operator's Manual

---

4. Complete a tracking history on a target vehicle as
described in Sect. 7.2.3 and verify the radar's patrol
speed reading with the patrol vehicle's speedometer.

---

Note that the officer does not mention that he verified the "patrol" speed with the vehicle's speedometer. Furthermore, as it indicates, Section 7.2.3 describes how to complete a tracking history:

Quote:

---

Quoting Kustom Eagle Operator's Manual

---

3. Complete a tracking history on the target vehicle.

A. Observe the target and surrounding traffic.
B. Estimate the speed of the target vehicle.
*C. Depress the HOLD switch to turn the microwave
transmitter on.
D. Listen to the pitch of the audio; it should
correspond to the estimated speed.
E. Observe the speed reading shown in the EAGLE's
TARGET display. It should correspond with B and
D above.
F. If any of the above elements are incompatible, the
reading must be disregarded.

* Use the HOLD feature to defeat radar detectors.

---

Note that there is no mention in the manual of an "audio tracking history" -- whatever that might be. Also, the officer does not state that he estimated your speed (step B) or, if he did, what that estimate might have been.

Lastly, the officer states that you were traveling in the same direction as the patrol vehicle. Once again, the Operator's Manual describes the various "modes" that the Eagle can be placed in:

Quote:

---

Quoting Kustom Eagle Operator's Manual

---

7.0 OPERATING MODES
The EAGLE is designed to be the most complete radar
system ever developed for law enforcement use. It has 4
different operating modes:

1. Stationary Front Antenna
2. Stationary Rear Antenna
3. Moving Front Antenna
4. Moving Rear Antenna

In the stationary mode, the EAGLE obtains speeds of target
vehicles traveling in either direction. In the moving mode,
it can obtain speeds of vehicles approaching the patrol
vehicle from an opposite direction and receding from the
patrol vehicle (in the opposite direction).

---

There is no mention of "same direction moving mode", which the officer indicates he used.

Now, I don't know how old my manual is, but you can contact Ed Cole at Wescom and make arrangements to view his copy of the Operator's Manual to make sure that these items have not changed.

The signature is valid, don't worry about it as pursuing that defense would be useless. Yes judges in Washington will dismiss on what seems like minor technicalities like the officer didn't say he was the one who checked the device etc. but this is not one of those.

I agree with Jojo on the above but I am going to say that a lot of this may well depend on the judge and what they think about traveling over freeway speeds on a 25MPH road. If you lose that is a hefty fine to pay so you may want to consider a deferral if you are eligible since there is no guarantee you would win especially when the judge reads how fast you were allegedly going. A deferral would also mean avoiding all moving violations for a year.

I am very curious how he aimed the radar unit while he was in moving mode? Did he swerve to put your vehicle in the aimed path of the antenna? There are a few inconsistencies regarding the usage of the unit. Why was he aiming/swerving his patrol car around in order to work "speed limit enforcement" as he claims? Wouldn't it have made more sense to use a handheld unit in a stationary position for "speed limit enforcement"?

April 25th is a long time to wait for court date, I am assuming they scheduled it within the 120 days before August 23 but you may be able to check and see if you are on a the attorney calendar for your court date. If not you may end up in the same situation I am currently in where they rescheduled me for the attorney calendar due to "making legal arguments" which ended up being 120 days past my original NOI being issued.

~Spike~

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo

---

There is no mention of "same direction moving mode", which the officer indicates he used.

---

Here's marketing information on the Kustom Golden Eagle, which asserts that it can measure the speed of vehicles both in front of and behind the patrol unit, both coming and going.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Here's marketing information on the Kustom Golden Eagle, which asserts that it can measure the speed of vehicles both in front of and behind the patrol unit, both coming and going.

---

You are correct. The officer states that he used a "Kustom Eagle", which is the manual I found. However, Ed Cole's certification says it is a Kustom Golden Eagle -- apparently a newer model of the Eagle. So, yes, OP, disregard my "same direction" argument.

Thanks for finding that Mr. Knowitall.

Quote:

---

Quoting spikespencer

---

I am very curious how he aimed the radar unit while he was in moving mode? Did he swerve to put your vehicle in the aimed path of the antenna? There are a few inconsistencies regarding the usage of the unit. Why was he aiming/swerving his patrol car around in order to work "speed limit enforcement" as he claims? Wouldn't it have made more sense to use a handheld unit in a stationary position for "speed limit enforcement"?

---

The "antenna" projects a cone. It is not a narrow beam that must be specifically aimed.

I think that's what Spike means. At 250 feet a RADAR beam with a 12 degree divergence will cover four lanes of traffic, at 500 feet eight lanes. So what did the officer mean by "aimed the radar"? There's no aiming required, nor can it be easily accomplished since it's not a handheld unit.

Correct, the manner in which he used the RADAR unit his sworn affidavit of speed is not consistent with the proper usage in the operator's manual or his being trained properly how to use it since according to his statement he "aimed" the RADAR unit, which I would like to know how he did and why?

~Spike~