Officer's Sworn Statement for a Speeding Ticket is Missing Important Details

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Washington
I have contested my ticket, I already have my insurance on file with the court clerk, and I'm trying to build my case now that I have gotten the information from my discovery request. I obtained the form to use for the request on this site. I am including my ticket- my discovery request- and what was sent to me (which really seems to be lacking when comparing to others on the forums).
http://www.simplesite.com/builder/pa...ewtype=Default

Ok so the User name is Brodi1989 and the password is bowser- then click the gallery tab for all 3 photos: Im sorry for all the inconvience on seeing the images- I can email them to anyone who wants to help.

I find myself a bit lost when trying to follow any guide for how I should structure my argument. If im not mistaken it looks as if the officer did not sign the statement- and I was never given anything regarding the SMD calibration or Tuning. Furthermore the officers statements about my comments are bogus- which leads me to believe there is no tape. If anyone can help me out here I'd be very appreciative- My court date is set for less than a week away.
Thanks in advance!

The odds are not great you will get a dismissal unless you are not provided the full discovery and are not given a chance to form a defense and can prove that prejudiced your case. The statements are usually electronically signed. We cannot see the officers statement to comment.

The statement is poorly written but some of the required elements are there. There are problems with it though. The officer does not identify which SMD unit # was used, nor does the officer indicate if it passed required testing on the day in question. You are correct that it appears the officer did not sign it either.

The back side of the officer’s copy contains the sworn statement and the front of the ticket is signed, so that might be ok. However, to me the statement has definite problems as free9man noted.

Here are a few obvious issues:

1. The radar unit is not identified or the tuning forks that go with it. Each should have a number. That makes it impossible for you to identify which device he used and examine the corresponding calibration certificate required to be on file at the court. The prosecutor is not required to send you the calibration but couldn’t anyway since the officer did not include a number.
2. There is no statement that the officer was trained and qualified in the use of the specific unit (which was never specified anyway).
3. At the end there is a cryptic note stating “radar pass [checkmark] 1750 hours ok” which is insufficient. The officer should state that he/she personally: (a) tested the unit internally by the use of a self-test button, (b) tested the unit externally with all assigned tuning forks, and (c) performed all tests both prior to and after the stop within a reasonable amount of time.

On any of the above points you can move to suppress radar evidence for lack of foundation. Just make sure to announce that you have motions immediately when called--before the judge reads the statement and before you are sworn in for testimony. If any motion is granted, move for dismissal due to lack of evidence.

The officer’s recollection of your comment that you “hadn’t completely slowed yet” isn’t necessarily an admission of speeding and probably can’t be used against you.

First off I'd like to say thank you for all the help- Here is a link to the officers statement - the ticket- and the discovery request- sent to me in case anyone tried to view it and was unable.
http://s22.postimg.org/f3gmnwtup/Spe...icket_2015.jpg
http://s14.postimg.org/agqdoy97l/Dis...quest_2015.jpg
http://s29.postimg.org/4hoyong53/Off...eport_2015.jpg

Since it seems the officer did not follow proper procedure- I understand that I must motion immediately when called, does that mean while walking up to the designated table I just say "I HAVE MOTIONS" I apologize for my obvious novice experience with the situation.

Note, A challenge to this may result in the Prosecutor showing reasonable cause that all case information was not available at the time of your request or possibly present it that day or seek rescheduling. The judge only needs to decide you were not prejudiced by the activity.

Quote:

---

RULE IRLJ 3.1
CONTESTED HEARINGS--PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS


(a) Subpoena. The defendant and the prosecuting attorney may subpoena
witnesses necessary for the presentation of their respective cases. Witnesses
should be served at least 7 days before the hearing. The subpoena may be issued
by a judge, court commissioner, or clerk of the court or by a party's lawyer.
If a party's lawyer issues a subpoena, a copy shall be filed with the court and
with the office of the prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the
infraction is filed on the same day it is sent out for service. A request that
an officer appear at a contested hearing pursuant to rule 3.3(c) shall be filed
on a separate pleading. A subpoena may be directed for service within their
jurisdiction to the sheriff of any county or any peace officer of any
municipality in the state in which the witness may be or it may be served as
provided in CR 45(c), or it may be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid,
sent to the witnesses' last known address. Service by mail shall be deemed
complete upon the third day following the day upon which the subpoena was
placed in the mail. If the subpoena is for a witness outside the county, a
judge must approve of the subpoena.

(b) Discovery. Upon written demand of the defendant at least 14 days before
a contested hearing, filed with the court and served on the office of the
prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the infraction is filed,
the prosecuting attorney shall at least 7 days before the hearing provide the
defendant or the defendant's lawyer with (1) a copy of the citing officer's
sworn statement (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; and (3) the names of any witnesses not identified in the
citing officer's sworn statement. No other discovery shall be required. 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. 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. Neither party is
precluded from investigating the case, and neither party shall impede another
party's investigation. A request for discovery pursuant to this section shall
be filed on a separate pleading.

(c) Amendment of Notice. The court may permit a notice of infraction to be
amended at any time before judgment if no additional or different infraction is
charged, and if substantial rights of the defendant are not thereby prejudiced.
A continuance shall be granted if the defendant satisfies the court that the
additional time is needed to defend against the amended notice of infraction.

(d) Sufficiency. No notice of infraction shall be deemed insufficient for
failure to contain a definite statement of the essential facts constituting the
specific infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed, nor by
reason of defects, imperfections or omissions which do not tend to prejudice
substantial rights of the defendant.


Adopted as JTIR effective January 1, 1981. Changed from JTIR to IRLJ effective
September 1, 1992; amended effective January 2, 1997; amended effective
January 3, 2006; January 2, 2007; amended effective September 1, 2010.]

---

Ok so the prosecuting attorney will ask for a rescheduling? I do know that I submitted the request for discovery 14 days prior to the hearing. I also know -according to IRLJ 3.1 (b)- I should have received it at least 7 days before the court date- when in fact I received it 6 days before the court date.
Another question I have is whether or not to get the information from the court about the SMD device. I would guess that since it was not sent to me it is on public record- Even if I do get the records though- I have no way of comparing the SMD device used to capture my speed because it was not listed, and as far as I can tell the officers sworn statement must state that he/she has performed specific calibration tests before and after the stop- he lists to have done a test (not what kind or if he was certified to do it) about 11 hours before he stopped me, and then I have no confirmation of a time or if he tested it after he stopped me. and quite honestly I believe he got the number by clocking me before I hit the speed limit sign, not that it matters. But how could they use the radar report when I cant even compare it to the calibration test to mount a defense?

Quote:

---

Quoting Brodi

---

Ok so the prosecuting attorney will ask for a rescheduling?

---

Based what I’ve read on this forum and what I’ve seen in Wa courts I doubt that will happen, but if it did you can object on the grounds that you should not be penalized by having to come back on another day due to the prosecution being unprepared.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brodi

---

I do know that I submitted the request for discovery 14 days prior to the hearing. I also know -according to IRLJ 3.1 (b)- I should have received it at least 7 days before the court date- when in fact I received it 6 days before the court date.

---

The problem with that argument is that you would need to show that your case was prejudiced by not having the extra day, which is something the judge is not likely to agree to.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brodi

---

Another question I have is whether or not to get the information from the court about the SMD device.

---

Because no specific SMD is listed on the officer’s statement, you need not and cannot attempt to view it at the court. Essentially they have no case based on that report.

Update:
Regarding the missing signature below the officer’s statement, I’m now thinking that you and free9man probably DO make a valid point even though it’s signed on the front side. On the front side he is certifying probable cause, but on the back he should be signing to a certification that all his statements are true and correct, with date and place pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085 and IRLJ 3.3(c). Therefore his report does not meet the requirements and his entire “testimony” should be inadmissible. This is yet another motion to suppress that you can make for a total of at least 6 and you only need one successful motion to win.

Ok- again you guys are great!
So something else I would like to be prepared for (since everything so far has been to get the officers statement thrown out), what if the officer is actually there and claims to know the SMD unit number and calibration used and time and type and that it was used with the correct way with the correct tuning forks etc.. Is a court case just dead in the water if the officer is there to say he remembers everything plainly?

Unless you can prove it prejudices your defense or right to a speedy trial, yes additional info can be presented by an amended report.

Isn't the fact that I had no way of knowing the exact SMD unit or calibration technique or accuracy enough to say that it prejudices my case? What if the officer just made up that he used 1A with tuning fork 1A or whatever, isn't the fact that he doesn't list it on his sworn statement enough to prove that he may be incorrect?

Quote:

---

Quoting Brodi

---

what if the officer is actually there and claims to know the SMD unit number and calibration used and time and type and that it was used with the correct way with the correct tuning forks etc.. Is a court case just dead in the water if the officer is there to say he remembers everything plainly?

---

Washington State has a somewhat simplified system for infractions in which officers submit a sworn statement and in most cases that statement is the only discovery the defendant is entitled to receive. Officers don’t appear in court for infractions unless subpoenaed by the defendant and would be “off the clock” in any other circumstance, so would have no reason to. What you are asking is theoretically possible but very unlikely unless he/she were there for some other reason.

In your case there actually is no sworn statement so I think it’s quite likely that the prosecutor will simply withdraw the charge or the judge will throw it out.

Quote:

---

Quoting Brodi

---

Isn't the fact that I had no way of knowing the exact SMD unit or calibration technique or accuracy enough to say that it prejudices my case? What if the officer just made up that he used 1A with tuning fork 1A or whatever, isn't the fact that he doesn't list it on his sworn statement enough to prove that he may be incorrect?

---

Yes and yes.