How to Get a Radar Speeding Ticket Dismissed, Stalker DSR-2x
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington State
Fighting a radar ticket in Renton Washington. Ticket was received heading downhill around a slight bend with some traffic in front of me.
Discovery was delivered to me late by 1 day and the radar certification is strange. Normally the Stalker DSR's are certified on a 2 year interval, but this certification states 12 months?
Any glaring holes in this sworn statement?
I would've considered subpoenaing the officer to ask him why he didn't mention the traffic that could've obstructed the radar, but since the discovery was late I missed the deadline
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3...adarcert_1.jpg
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g3...tatement_1.jpg
Radar Cert: https://www.rentonwa.gov/UserFiles/S...d%20062316.pdf
Quote:
"On 12-21-17 I was parked in the 1000blk of SW Sunset Blvd, in the City of Renton, County of King. I was running radar when I observed the defendant vehicle pass by my marked patrol vehicle leaving my location in excess of the posted 35 MPH speed limit. I obtained a high audio signal as the defendant entered the radar. I obtained a reading of 56 mph. The defendant was the only vehicle in the radar beam at the time I obtained the above reading. The calibration of Radar #DB5154 is with assigned tuning forks #231855 & #337502. I was using a Stalker DSR 2X listed above in the stationary mode. The radar was checked internally and externally by the assigned tuning fork at the above location at 0700hrs. The above radar unit was functioning properly and was in good working order at the above time the above speed was obtained on the defendant vehicle. I am trained and qualified to operate this radar unit. An affidavid regarding the above speed-measuring device in on file at the renton municipal and district courts, renton WA.
Radar model: Stalker DSR2X
Serial DB5154
Tuning fork #231855 & #337502
*Signed*"
Thanks,
Scott
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
He says what forks are supposed to be used but he doesn't actually say he did any testing. Only thing that jumps out at me.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
opps I made a typo.. he did say "I was using a Stalker DSR 2X listed above in the stationary mode. The radar was checked internally and externally by the assigned tuning fork at the above location at 0700hrs. The above radar unit was functioning properly and was in good working order at the above time the above speed was obtained on the defendant vehicle".
Does the radar cert being 18 months old hold any water? Their own certification form says inspect and test every 12 months?
He also didn't mention if he tested his radar at the end of this shift.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
Yes, you definitely have a strong motion to exclude or suppress evidence of speed due to lack of foundation because the certificate provided in the discovery response does not meet the annual testing requirement as specified in the document.
Also free9man has a good argument that “he doesn't actually say he did any testing”. He only implies it with the statement that “The Radar was checked” but his statement of personal knowledge is missing and is a foundational requirement per ER 602. That would also be a motion to exclude or suppress evidence of speed due to lack of foundation, but the motion about the expired cert is stronger.
Announce that you have motions immediately when your case is called, before the officer’s statement is read into the record and before you are sworn in for testimony. If granted, you can move for dismissal due to lack of evidence.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
It's strange because many other cities in King County call out 2 year certification on Stalkers. For some reason the certification company who handles Renton police says "test approx every 12 months" in their protocol. I'm worried I'm missing something and will look silly trying to suppress radar that was calibrated 18 months prior to ticket, but I will give it a shot!
I made a typo on my original post, officer did say "The calibration of Radar #DB5154 is with assigned tuning forks #231855 & #337502. I was using a Stalker DSR 2X listed above in the stationary mode. The radar was checked internally and externally by the assigned tuning fork at the above location at 0700hrs". He doesn't say "I tested it", but he does say it was "checked at the location at 0700 hrs".
Last ditch effort would be arguing the officer was under a powerline, and there was another power line running across the road between the officer and myself. The stalker radar manual says electrical interference is possible.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
Quote:
Quoting
italkart451
It's strange because many other cities in King County call out 2 year certification on Stalkers. For some reason the certification company who handles Renton police says "test approx every 12 months" in their protocol. I'm worried I'm missing something and will look silly trying to suppress radar that was calibrated 18 months prior to ticket, but I will give it a shot!
Be careful with this. Your argument is sound, but there may be a different certificate on file with the court. It would be best to show up early on the day of your hearing to examine if there is a more recent SMD Certificate.
Quote:
Quoting
italkart451
I made a typo on my original post, officer did say "The calibration of Radar #DB5154 is with assigned tuning forks #231855 & #337502. I was using a Stalker DSR 2X listed above in the stationary mode. The radar was checked internally and externally by the assigned tuning fork at the above location at 0700hrs". He doesn't say "I tested it", but he does say it was "checked at the location at 0700 hrs".
Searcher refers to ER 602, which is slightly off the mark. As a prosecutor, I would argue that one can have personal knowledge of something without saying that they were the one who completed the requisite checks. E.g.: I can testify that I saw someone throw a ball that broke Mrs. Davidson's window. This doesn't mean that I don't have personal knowledge of the situation.
Bellevue v. Mociulski is a better argument, but this only applies to Experts... not the officer himself.
"In fact, the authentication of the speed measuring device involves a compound determination. Before the machine is deemed reliable, the witness testing the machines or monitoring the testing must first show his/her qualifications to make and/or evaluate the tests. The witness must first qualify as an expert via knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. ER 702. After the witness has qualified as an expert, he/she must show that the machines passed the requisite tests and checks. Only then can the speed measuring devices be deemed reliable."
Although this only applies to Experts, it would be hard to argue that this logic shouldn't apply to the officers themselves.
On another note, you might go as far as to say that the officer's statement in re the "checking" is hearsay. I don't like subscribing to this school of thought because hearsay is more of a situation where "he said that he tested the device." We don't have that here. We have a situation where "the device was checked." Nevertheless, the argument may work in front of some judges.
Here's how I would rate each of these:
1) Mociulski
2) Hearsay
3) ER 602 Lack of Personal Knowledge
These are all compositely interconnected.
Quote:
Quoting
italkart451
Last ditch effort would be arguing the officer was under a powerline, and there was another power line running across the road between the officer and myself. The stalker radar manual says electrical interference is possible.
Motion denied. "Possible" is not enough to tip the scales to your favor. And even to say that this is possible, I can't even begin to describe how much of a pain in the a** this would be to prove. You'd need an expert witness familiar with the DSR and an expert witness familiar with electrical interference cause by power lines. I'm looking at a bill right now from an Electrical Engineering expert in the amount of $400 for one hour of testimony. And IMO, that is low end for the cost of an expert.
Don't let me deter you from finding an expert that would testify for free, however.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
And remember that in WA state the standard for traffic tickets is preponderance of evidence, raising a possibility is not enough, you need to overcome the presumption that the measurement was valid. Your only real hope is to get the radar reading excluded due to lack of foundation for calibration or timely testing or other technicality.
If the ticket was written at or near 0700, it is reasonable to presume that the officer was present at the time and location when he wrote the ticket and would have personal knowledge of the testing.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
Ok thanks, I will arrive early and check their books and see if I can use the mentioning of 12-month cert cycle as a motion to suppress.
The officer said the radar and tuning fork was checked at 0700hrs, citation issued at 0801hrs. The officer didn't mention his end of shift check. Not sure if this is significant.
People of the State of Michigan v. Zolton Anton Ferency, 133 Mich.App. 526, 351 N.W. 2d 225 (1984)
- Judicial notice of the Doppler Principle. (Moving Radar).
- Officers are not required to present scientific evidence.
- Seven guidelines established for moving radar:
1. Adequate officer training and experience.
2. Radar in proper working condition and installed properly at the time of citation.
3. Radar was used in an area with a minimum of distortion.
4. Patrol speed is displayed and independently verified by speedometer.
5. Testing of unit at the beginning and end of the shift.
6. Officer must be able to establish that the target vehicle was within the beam width.
Lead vehicle theory dismissed
7. Technician certification of the radar
Yes, ticket was written just over an hour later at 0801 after his beginning of shift check. He didn't mention checking at the end of his shift.
Will likely try to use my deferral if the radar evidence is a bust.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
Although not authoritative precedent, you can certainly use that case as an example of the information from another state.
If your record is fairly clean, judges like to see that someone attempted a solution to the problem with research on their own.
The way I would do this if I were you is play the fiddle of the layman.
"Your honor, I was unable to find anything within the state of Washington that establishes that an SMD must be checked after the stop, in addition to that check prior to a stop. I did, however, find several cases throughout the country where it was established that testing of the unit must be completed by the officer both before AND after the stop. Namely, Michigan v. Zolton out of the Michigan Court of Appeals. It stands to reason that Washington should follow roughly the same requirement, therefore I would like to move to preclude the radar reading as the officer has not stated that the unit was tested at the end of the stop."
You never know. The judge may appreciate your research.
I once saw an 18 year-old kid win a case simply by showing up to the hearing with an insane amount of cases printed out from his local law library. Something like 400 pages printed.
Re: Washington State Renton Municiple Court / Radar Cert of Stalker Dsr-2x
UPDATE: I was able to get the citation dismissed this morning. The judge acknowledged that the radar cert was beyond the 12-month recommendation on the certificate. Although I was unable to obtain the departments requirement for checking the tuning forks before and after the stop, the judge admitted most sworn statements he see's do in fact mention checking the radar at the end of shift. After I submitted articles from the Stalker DSR-2x manual mentioning the after shift test along with prior case law, he said I was free to go.
Thanks and everyone and BrendanjKeegan!