Radar Speeding Ticket for 70 MPH in a 60 MPH Zone

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

Good morning, I received a speeding ticket doing 70 in a 60 on the I-5 Freeway. I was heading home from a double shift at ~1am with the highway clear and I was not even aware that I was speeding or if I was speeding until my radar went off and moments later saw flashing lights. The ticket claims I was speeding at 70mph but I am uncertain that I did for I was more focused on the road being tired and not on the speedometer.

Facts: The officer was using a SMD Radar on moving mode to capture my speed from behind me and in the same direction. There were no other cars around me.

I have a court date to fight this ticket next week and have submitted a discovery request. I need help determining if I should fight the ticket based on the information on the discovery or just admit guilt, request for a reduced fine and not waste my time.

The only "holes" that I could find reviewing the discovery is the following:
- Motion to suppress the officers sworn statement because the officer indicates the speed measuring device was used in the moving mode, and the officer also states that the "patrol speed" indicated on the smd was consistent with the speedometer of the patrol car the officer was driving. However he does not mention any calibration or certification with respect to the speedometers accuracy.
- The officer does not state the approx. distance the radar was used relative to my car. I don't know what the radar is calibrated for distance wise but I can obtain the cert/cal documents from the court and find out.

Please let me know what you think about this case and whether its worth fighting.

Attached is the discovery documents for your reference.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps218a4ddc.jpg

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/m...pse8f90f64.jpg



thank you

One additional issue I can see is where the officer states “The SMD was tested…” but does not mention who tested it. If the officer did not personally perform the tests then the statement is hearsay and not admissible. The statement that the SMD “was certified by factory trained WSP technicians” is also hearsay.

You can also raise the speedometer issue. Michigan v. Zolton Anton Ferency is a good reference on that subject.

I’m guessing the distance issue doesn’t apply to radar but not sure about that.

Thank you very much for you analysis and input. I'll review the links you attached. Very much appreciated!

The 2 biggest problems I see for you are that you did not deny speeding and admitted to the officer that you occasionally go 70. You could argue that the officer did not state that he personally tested the SMD, but the way that paragraph is worded it is really left up to interpretation - the judges interpretation. The officer listed the serial number of the SMD and his patrol car, so there will calibration certificates for both; you should request both from the proper authorities. The judge WILL have them! I think you will be mostly at the mercy of the judge, but I'm not an expert either.

Quote:

---

Quoting dclack

---

The 2 biggest problems I see for you are that you did not deny speeding and admitted to the officer that you occasionally go 70. You could argue that the officer did not state that he personally tested the SMD, but the way that paragraph is worded it is really left up to interpretation - the judges interpretation. The officer listed the serial number of the SMD and his patrol car, so there will calibration certificates for both; you should request both from the proper authorities. The judge WILL have them! I think you will be mostly at the mercy of the judge, but I'm not an expert either.

---

Yea I wasn't really thinking straight being so tired. Shouldn't have said some things.

Where did the officer state the serial # of the SMD? Are the tuning forks considered part of the SMD?

Thank you for your input

About third paragraph, R-2188. From what I understand, the SMD is calibrated once every year or two by some place in Wenatchee, but the calibration is verified at the beginning and end of each shift with the forks. I don't know if the forks are part of it or not.

All the state has to prove is preponderance of evidence. As described in the procedural guide (if you haven't read it yet, here it is http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89115), "That doesn’t even mean 51%. It means 50% plus just enough to tip the scale against you." Your statement that you occasionally go 70 is basically that in and of itself.

The only ticket I've contested I did get dropped but that was because the officer wrote the wrong infraction number on his sworn statement; it didn't match the number on the ticket.

I went to the county court today to try to obtain speedometer certs and was being directed back and forth to ask the prosecutors office and the clerk. Very frustrating for no one wanted to give me a straight answer. The best I got was a giant book of records that contained a ton of certs. I was verbally told that whatever is in the book was current and I was able to find the speedometer cert. I found the SMD cert online at https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearc...tionPrint/3426.

I'm not feeling so confident at the moment with this case. Please provide some advice on how you think I should move forward in terms of whether to fight it in court or just mitigate and request for a reduce fine.

Please see the attached for the Speedometer cert and the website link for the SMD cert.
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/m...ps173ab44d.jpg

There are several points I would like to make here:

1. I don’t see any big problems at all with the officer’s version of your remarks. It’s always best not to talk, but what you allegedly said was not a confession. Almost no one can honestly say they've never “occasionally” gone 70 in a 60 zone. You did NOT admit to exceeding the limit at that time and place.

2. The wording of the paragraph regarding internal/external testing of the radar is not left to the judge’s interpretation. The officer very clearly fails to present evidence that he/she personally tested the unit that day, and instead makes an ambiguous, potentially misleading statement that somebody did it but won’t say who. Failure to specify who did the testing is hearsay.

Furthermore, no detail is provided about the internal test results and there is a statement that the assigned tuning forks “were used” but again no statement as to who used them. If the judge denies your motion to suppress radar due to no evidence of testing by that officer on that day, you have a good basis for appeal. For more information I would suggest reading other threads on the subject.

3. That’s good work on your part finding the certification for the speedometer. You can still argue that the speedometer is subject to error because it was not tested within a reasonable timeframe, and tires among other things could have changed on the patrol car during the 9 months since its last certification.

They should also have a copy of the certificate for the SMD used to issue your ticket at the court. Only having it online does not comply with IRLJ 6.6(d) which states: “Evidence shall be suppressed pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule if the evidence in the certificate, affidavit or document is insufficient, or if it has not been filed as required.”

4. Nobody can estimate your chances in a particular court unless they have observed similar arguments with the same judge. You might be able to estimate your own chances by attending infraction hearings on a different day, but I know it’s not practical for most people. However if you do that, just be sure to observe attorneys rather than people representing themselves. Often attorneys are scheduled at a different time.

If you don’t want to risk losing and insurance is a concern, consider asking the prosecutor just before your session if your charge can be amended to a non-moving violation. You didn't mention if you are eligible for deferral, but if so the judge might agree to hear motions without taking away your deferral option. Be sure to announce you have motions immediately when called—before the officer’s statement is read into the record and before you are sworn in.

5. Mitigation might be more likely to get you a fine reduction but other available choices such as talking to the prosecutor are probably better.

Quote:

---

Quoting searcher99

---

There are several points I would like to make here:

1. I don’t see any big problems at all with the officer’s version of your remarks. It’s always best not to talk, but what you allegedly said was not a confession. Almost no one can honestly say they've never “occasionally” gone 70 in a 60 zone. You did NOT admit to exceeding the limit at that time and place.

2. The wording of the paragraph regarding internal/external testing of the radar is not left to the judge’s interpretation. The officer very clearly fails to present evidence that he/she personally tested the unit that day, and instead makes an ambiguous, potentially misleading statement that somebody did it but won’t say who. Failure to specify who did the testing is hearsay.

Furthermore, no detail is provided about the internal test results and there is a statement that the assigned tuning forks “were used” but again no statement as to who used them. If the judge denies your motion to suppress radar due to no evidence of testing by that officer on that day, you have a good basis for appeal. For more information I would suggest reading other threads on the subject.

3. That’s good work on your part finding the certification for the speedometer. You can still argue that the speedometer is subject to error because it was not tested within a reasonable timeframe, and tires among other things could have changed on the patrol car during the 9 months since its last certification.

They should also have a copy of the certificate for the SMD used to issue your ticket at the court. Only having it online does not comply with IRLJ 6.6(d) which states: “Evidence shall be suppressed pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule if the evidence in the certificate, affidavit or document is insufficient, or if it has not been filed as required.”

4. Nobody can estimate your chances in a particular court unless they have observed similar arguments with the same judge. You might be able to estimate your own chances by attending infraction hearings on a different day, but I know it’s not practical for most people. However if you do that, just be sure to observe attorneys rather than people representing themselves. Often attorneys are scheduled at a different time.

If you don’t want to risk losing and insurance is a concern, consider asking the prosecutor just before your session if your charge can be amended to a non-moving violation. You didn't mention if you are eligible for deferral, but if so the judge might agree to hear motions without taking away your deferral option. Be sure to announce you have motions immediately when called—before the officer’s statement is read into the record and before you are sworn in.

5. Mitigation might be more likely to get you a fine reduction but other available choices such as talking to the prosecutor are probably better.

---

Thank you for your input, is it possible to request a deal out with the prosecutor even prior to the day im scheduled in court? My court date is Thursday, can I talk to the prosecutor on Monday to request to amend to a non-moving?

Also do you have a good thread on how to formulate my motions properly? I'd like to sound professional when I appear in court.

Thanks again.

- - - Updated - - -


Good evening everyone, I've had some time to think about my motions. Please take a look and let me know if you think they are valid. I plan on trying work with the prosecutor to adjust the it to a non moving violation. I'll defend myself if they don't want to agree.

My motions:
1) Your honor, I move to suppress any SMD evidence. The sworn statement states that the unit was tested, however it does not say WHO tested it. The officer fails to present evidence that he personally tested the unit that day, and instead makes an ambiguous, potentially misleading statement that someone tested the unit but won’t address who. Therefore there is no factual evidence to suggest that officer (name) had firsthand knowledge of the calibration results. If the officer has no direct knowledge of the calibration of the unit, he cannot attest to someone else's certification.

2) Your honor, I move to suppress any SMD evidence. The sworn statement states the SMD was certified by a factory trained WSP technician but also fails to say WHO certified the device. IRLJ 6.6 (d) requires that the certifications be file with the court. However on February 20th when I went to the court clerk to see the SMD certifications on file, the clerk said that she could not do it. Instead I was handed a large binder of certifications. I was unable to find the certification for the BEE III R-2188 SMD which is not in accordance with IRLJ 6.6 (d).

3) Your Honor, I move to suppress any evidence of speed based on the patrol vehicle's speedometer due to lack of foundation. Since modern speedometers are electronic, they should be periodically 'calibrated', just like any other electronic Speed Measuring Device. Furthermore, authentication of an electronic speed measuring device is subject to ER 901, pursuant to Seattle v Peterson. The officer’s sworn statement indicates the SMD was used in moving mode and that the “patrol speed” indicated on the SMD was consistent with the speedometer of the officer’s patrol car. However the officer does not mention that the speedometer has recently been certified or calibrated independently of the radar unit in a reasonable time frame relative to the date of the infraction. Tires and transmission work among other factors may have changed on the officer patrol car that would require re-certification of the speedometer.

Please let me know what you think as well as advice to if I should continue to contest or try to mitgate.

Thank you again.

I’ve not been to court in Snohomish County but you might get some insight about South Division (not sure if that’s the one you’re assigned to) from this previous thread. I doubt the prosecutor will speak to you except at court just before your hearing, but even with a deal in place you would probably still have to make an appearance. The problem with mitigation is that the ticket goes on your record unless you are eligible for a deferred finding.

Your motions sound fine to me. For more insight on the hearsay defense, take a look at this previous post and the one below it. ER 602 requires clear evidence that the officer had personal knowledge of testing. Earlier in the statement the officer had no problem stating that “I estimated…”, “I have…experience…”, “I was 100% certain…” and “I was properly operating the [radar]”. Yet with regard to testing the unit there was no mention of personal knowledge.