Wrong Infraction Date Officer's Statement in Discovery

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of:WA. This is my first post in my life.Please forgive my formal/grammer mistakes. On Date 01/12/2010 I was stopped by an officer speeding 46 in 25 zone in sea tac wa. After viewing my docs in his car he come back & let me go without issuing any citation or warning. He didn't say any word/hint that he intend to send me a citation by mail

ON Date 01/26/2010 I recieved a mail with citation code 46.61.400 speeding 46 in 25 zone.

when I Requested Discovery ,I found officer cited me on date 01/10/2010 in his statement instead of 01/12/2010

Q 1 In the court can I motion for dismissal on the grounds of material defect(dont know the statue ,rule, code or terms of law).OR cnfusing dates of nfraction.

Q 2 On Date 01/12/2010 At the location where I was stopped officer didn't issued me a citaion when I had two passengers/witnesses in my car/taxi-cab to get their names & phone numbers for my deffence/witness.After two weeks they are gone. It is unfair that diffedent had not given an opportunity to collect all the proof of evidences/witnesses at the time of infraction by depriving him collecting evidences witnesses at loction while plantiff hiding charges from diffendent,when RCW 46.64.015 clearly says
{ An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offence or violation EXCEPT either whom the offence or violation is committed in his or her presence}.
My Q 3 If officer did not issue me a citation on the locaton of offence/violation becouse he was not present there then how could be he stand/used as awitness?

Okay.

A 1 Unless you can prove in court that the date of the stop was in fact 01/12/2010, then the court will find you guilty. Basically, there is no proof that this violation DID NOT happen on 01/10/2010. If that is your defense, then you're gonna have to prove that it was the wrong date.

A 2 RCW 46.64.015 says, "...An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended." [2006 c 270 § 3] With that said, it doesn't say anything about an officer not being able to send you a ticket in the mail. A client of mine once had a ticket sent to him just before the anniversary of the arrest (or officer pulling him over).

A 3 The officer has in his notes, which I am willing to guarantee that he still has them, your car, license, and pretty much everything that he needed to fill out the ticket. He has grounds as a witness because he WITNESSED you breaking the law. It doesn't matter if he wrote the ticket days later. I hope that makes sense.

Now, with all of that said, you should check the date of filing for the ticket, which should be on the returned ticket that you received from your discovery. If the ticket wasn't filed within 5 business days, you have immediate grounds for dismissal. If it was filed within 5 business days, check and see if the handwriting on the ticket is legible. If it is not, then you have grounds for dismissal.

Let me know if these solutions do not work for you. I have other ideas that may help a little.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, let me know.

Brendan

Just to be clear the ticket that was mailed to you and the officers affidavit you got in discovery are dated on the 1/10/10? If so, I suppose you could somehow check to see if the officer was in fact actually working on the date in question at the time...

A 1 Unless you can prove in court that the date of the stop was in fact 01/12/2010, then the court will find you guilty. Basically, there is no proof that this violation DID NOT happen on 01/10/2010. If that is your defense, then you're gonna have to prove that it was the wrong date.

Quote:

---

---

FIRST Thanks for quick responce. In the Discovery I got a copy of Officer's certified statement that violation Date was 01/10/10, but in the copy of original infraction/citaion violation Date was 01/12/10 both copies were not signed by officer (ammended law;signature are not required any more)Instead only name & badge# are on the both copies.Also ticket was filed in timely (whith in 5 days) speed was measured by RADAR given certified copy of SMD tech including device name # & both tuning forks # stating cllibrated before & after stop.This was checked more than 6 months ago but less than year.

SECOND OFFICER stoped me for speeding but didn't issued me any citation,warning or even verbal notice or hint that he is going to mail me a ticket so I can collect names & phone # of 2 witnesses/passengers in my taxi cab & he let me go without saying anything Now i am feeling that I was deprived from my right to deffend my case by not serving/issuing ticket on the spot so I can collect all the evidence/witnesses name # phone date,time etc. After 2 weeks it not possible for me to find that witnesses/passengers/vsiters.

In response to your first paragraph:
I am confused. Did you say that in the officer's affidavit he stated that the incident happened on 01/12/2010 and then on the ticket he stated 01/10/2010? Because if this is so, you have a good chance at winning the case because the officer loses credibility due to his own confusion of the case.

In response to you second paragraph:
I don't know the exact law but an officer CAN serve the ticket on the violator by mailing it. If I am wrong here, someone correct me: If an officer wishes, he doesn't even need to pull you over, he can simply send the ticket without arresting the violator. (An arrest in this case pertains to the detainment of a violator by pulling them over)

With that:
Is this a handwritten ticket, or was it computer-generated?
Did the officer include any information about the testing facility that calibrated the tuning forks?

Let me know the answers to those.

Brendan

46.64.015

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

In response to your first paragraph:
I am confused. Did you say that in the officer's affidavit he stated that the incident happened on 01/12/2010 and then on the ticket he stated 01/10/2010? Because if this is so, you have a good chance at winning the case because the officer loses credibility due to his own confusion of the case.

In response to you second paragraph:
I don't know the exact law but an officer CAN serve the ticket on the violator by mailing it. If I am wrong here, someone correct me: If an officer wishes, he doesn't even need to pull you over, he can simply send the ticket without arresting the violator. (An arrest in this case pertains to the detainment of a violator by pulling them over)

With that:
Is this a handwritten ticket, or was it computer-generated?
Did the officer include any information about the testing facility that calibrated the tuning forks?

Let me know the answers to those.

Brendan

---

Hi, Mr. Brendan
I am sorry and appologise for confusion. I was not able to explain exactly/correctly becouse English is my second language ,but I'l try my best.

The First (computer generated) ticket I got in the mail with citation on date 01/12/2010.which was correct,I was stopped by the officer that date. but when I requested a discovery next week I recieved few paperes that includes 1 copy of (computer generated) ticket showing date of citation 01/12/2010
2 copy of officers's sworn/certified statement saying date of citation 01/10/2010 which is NOT correct
3 A certified copy of tech/Facility certifying that Radar & tuning forks were tested at their facility on date (more than 6 months ago).

Quote:

---

second paragraph; I agree with you that officer have power/right to send you a ticket without stopping you, but I don't understand the logic that an officer ditermines/finds that you have violated the law, and he stops/arrest you on the spot but do not serve you a citation or tell you that he is intended to send you a citation by mail in the future so you can well start your deffence rightaway.That's why I Reffered the RCW 46.64.015 An officer may not serve of issue any traffic citation or notice for any offence or violation EXCEPT EITHER WHEN THE OFFENCE OR VIOLATION IS COMMITTED IN HIS OR HER PRESENCE.
What I understand that if an officer witnesses a offence in his presence he must serve a traffic citation to the offender otherwise he need not to serve instead he can mail it. If missunderstood the law I NEED EXPLAINATION IN SIMPLE WAY.THANK YOU for your HELP in Advance.

---

second paragraph; I agree with you that officer have power/right to send you a ticket without stopping you, but I don't understand the logic that an officer ditermines/finds that you have violated the law, and he stops/arrest you on the spot but do not serve you a citation or tell you that he is intended to send you a citation by mail in the future , so that way you can't well start your deffence rightaway on the spot by collecting names phone # etc.That's why I Reffered part of the RCW 46.64.015 ; An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offence or violation EXCEPT either when the offence or violation is committed in his or her presence
What I understand that if an officer witnesses a offence in his presence he must serve a traffic citation to the offender otherwise he need not to serve instead he can mail it. If I misunderstood the law I need explaination in simple way THANK YOU in Advance for vance your HELP.

FIRST Thanks for quick responce. In the Discovery I got a copy of Officer's certified statement that violation Date was 01/10/10, but in the copy of original infraction/citaion violation Date was 01/12/10 both copies were not signed by officer (ammended law;signature are not required any more)Instead only name & badge# are on the both copies.Also ticket was filed in timely (whith in 5 days) speed was measured by RADAR given certified copy of SMD tech including device name # & both tuning forks # stating cllibrated before & after stop.This was checked more than 6 months ago but less than year

I see now. You're just confused on your definition of service. In serving a violator most state will allow the officer to serve the violator by the means of mail. Therefore, his actions can be justified.

Clearly, the officer used a template and forgot to change the date of the offense on the affidavit. For this you could use a motion I just posted on another thread. Basically, your motion for dismissal would now say: "Your honor, defendant motions for dismissal on the grounds that the officer signed his affidavit 2 days before the violation took place. Clearly the officer did not know that I, the defendant, was going to commit this violation ahead of time, so how could he have signed the affidavit on January 10, 2009 when he says on the ticket that the violation was committed on January 12, 2010?"

In addition to this, JJB makes an interesting point to check and see if the Officer who signed your ticket was indeed working on January 10, 2009 at the time he stated in his affidavit. This could beef up your motion and make it even stronger to prove that he wasn't even working that day. In the State of Washington, officers can not write a ticket or serve it unless they are on duty.

"If the paperwork doesn't fit, you must acquit." Is the saying that applies here. If the affidavit was signed on January 10, 2009 and the ticket was signed on January 12, 2010 then the prosecution, which had officially rested its case on the date of the signed affidavit, has no case and you must be absolved.

On a separate note: The officer has done a reasonably well job at gathering a foundation of evidence for your case (aside from the above discrepancy), but now you can really hit him with something hard. This one is called the rule of Best Evidence. You stated that you received a certified copy of tech/Facility certifying that Radar & tuning forks were tested at their facility on date (more than 6 months ago). Is this a photocopy?

And Lastly: Because the ticket was computer generated, all the officer has to do is click a button and it automatically signs the ticket and affidavit for him. This is signature enough for both documents to be official.

If you have further questions, let me know.

Brendan

RCW 46.64.015 seems to be in conflict with RCW 46.63.030, which states, in pertinent part:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.63.030

---

(1) A law enforcement officer has the authority to issue a notice of traffic infraction:

(a) When the infraction is committed in the officer's presence;

(b) When the officer is acting upon the request of a law enforcement officer in whose presence the traffic infraction was committed;

(c) If an officer investigating at the scene of a motor vehicle accident has reasonable cause to believe that the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the accident has committed a traffic infraction;

(d) When the infraction is detected through the use of a photo enforcement system under RCW 46.63.160; or

(e) When the infraction is detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170.

(2) A court may issue a notice of traffic infraction upon receipt of a written statement of the officer that there is reasonable cause to believe that an infraction was committed.

---

Furthermore, IRLJ 2.2 goes on to say:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ2.2

---

(a) Generally. An infraction case is initiated by the issuance, service, and filing of a notice of infraction in accordance with this rule. An infraction is issued on the date the infraction is signed by the citing officer or prosecuting authority.

(b) Who May Issue. A notice of infraction may be issued, upon certification that the issuer has probable cause to believe, and does believe, that a person has committed an infraction contrary to law:

(1) By a citing officer. The infraction need not have been committed in the officers presence, except as provided by statute;

(2) By the prosecuting authority.

(c) Service of Notice. A notice of infraction may be served either by:

(1) The citing officer serving the notice of infraction on the person named in the notice of infraction at the time of issuance;

(2) The citing officer affixing to a vehicle in a conspicuous place the notice of a traffic infraction if it alleges the violation of a parking, standing, or stopping statute; or

(3) The citing officer or the prosecuting authority filing the notice of infraction with the court, in which case the court shall have the notice served either personally or by mail, postage prepaid, on the person named in the notice of infraction at his or her address. If a notice of infraction served by mail is returned to the court as undeliverable, the court shall issue a summons.

---

So, the infraction does NOT need to have been committed in the officer's presence, as required by 46.64.015, and, as long as the Notice was mailed by the COURT, mailing is OK.

Barry

THANK YOU ALL, Mr.Brendenjkeegan, Mr, JJB, and Mr. Blewis for big Help to providing me a deffensive tool (like a light in dark tunnel). I still have time (more than month) for my hearing date, my worry/concern is if I recieve a Ammended/correction letter from court/prosecuter than what I suppose to do?

I also thankfull to this website which has inspired me to gain awareness in legal system and my legal rights. I also thanks to the officer who gave me the opportunity to learn more about law.He was out there to do his job not intended to cite me but human error ocurred same like I was out there to make my living not to break the law. we cab driver have so much complications,chellenges and distractions while doing our job, it is possible a human error can ocurr. We expect some sympathy from law enforcements not hard punishments ,by saying this I am not pleading guilty I still wanna contest hearing.

So you're worried that they're going to amend the ticket? Not probable. And even if it was, you can argue that the ticket has already filed. My motion for that would be:

"Your honor, I have already built a case around the date of the ticket being separate from the date of the signed affidavit. The ticket has been filed and I filed a discovery request and received the wrong information that is being used against me in court. Clearly, the prosecution is depriving this defendant of his right to discovery. Defense motions for dismissal."

If the judge says something to the effect of "no," or, "I see no merit in that motion," then make a motion for extension:

"Your honor, defense motions for an extension in the date and time of the hearing for I have not had ample time to build a defense based on the facts of the prosecution's foundation."

If that doesn't work, the case is pretty much closed and you have lost. However, you would now have immediate grounds for appeal and the judgement would be overturned. The chance of this happening are not probable at all because the overturning of a ruling would ruin the judge who first tried your case.

Brendan

Thaks Brendan giving relief to my worry. I defenately use your deffence motion for dismissal at first, hopefully it'l work, if not I have another plans to discuss.

Plan 1; I'l ask the officer to bring his RADAR Logs Before and After the stop.
He will probably bring the radar logs based on date of citaion --/12/---that will conflict to his own sworn statement dated--/10/----.Q can I ask a motion for dismissal on this ground and in the word what should I say in court. but there is risk involve, for asking a RADAR logs in 2nd/new discovery in writing before the hearing date they might notice
their mistake and send me a new ammendid/corrected officer's statement .

Plan 2; In the discovery city prosecter has made ONGOING DEMAND saying Persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b) the city herby reqests all discoverable materials in the possesion of, or available to the deffendent, including, but not limited to, a list of witnesses that deffendent intend to call at the contested hearing including their names,adresses and phone numbers, a summary of the expected testimony of defence witnesses. THIS IS AN ONGOING DEMAND

Q 2 How can I Provide all that info to prosecuter on Demand when I was deprived from my right to collect it from my witnesses at first on the spot. Just imagine from my/deffendent's point of veiw, you are stopped by a officer for speeding violation and let you go without charging/serving/issuing any citation or even telling/informing you that he is intended to send you a citation by mail in the future. After 2 weeks he comes back equipped/armed with all the tools, evidences and witnesses needed to defeat you in the court and chellenge you to deffend yourself while snatching your opportunity to collect your tools (i.e evidences, names adresses and phone numbers of witnesses) at first. NOTE; Even though the officer filed the citation timely (hext day) but it come to my knwolege after 2 weeks by mail through prosecuter.Isn't this ridiculous/unfair the prosecuter wants my expected/future testimony in advance which is the only tool I have to deffend myself inthe other hand they hesitated to inform me the charges against me in the begining

That is the reason why I raised the issue of RCW 46.64.015 which is critical for deffendent I can discuss thiis in detail in the next post

I am now really confused. Normally, the prosecution will not file a discovery request. The best way in my opinion is to send them a letter stating that in response to their discovery you will not use any witnesses.

Did you subpoena the officer? If so, there's not much you can do about this case. However, if you haven't then DON'T. I have never heard of a defendant winning a case in which they had subpoenaed the officer.

If you haven't subpoenaed the officer there will most likely not be a prosecutor in court. Which is a good thing. It will simply be you and a trier of facts (the judge). Thus making it easier to win your case because you don't have ant arguments from the prosecution. (The prosecution has rested their case by not showing in court)

See the other thread for an answer to your question about ongoing demand. The starter of the other thread answered that correctly.

I'm still trying to understand what those questions were. If I didn't address them correctly, let me know.

Brendan

Hello, Mr. Brendan. Good afternoon. How are you. THANK YOU for continuence responce.

At first time when I go to court-clerk' office, I requeted a discovery of my case. Clerk told me to write this request on a plain paper, so I wrote this;

I -- (name of deffendent)--,resindent of---(address)--,wa. here by request for Discovery, All the proof, proof of Evidences and SUBPOENA OF OFFICER RELATED TO MY INFRACTION NUMBER--------Dated --/12/----.

Please provide me all of above Discovery & other Documents Related to my case A.S.A.P. Thank You. sign,name , address & phone# of deffendent.


I requested clerk to make a copy of my documents stamp it with received on date----,
give to me.


A Week later I recieved mail from court-clerk attached 5 pages.

Page 1 cover letter/copy ; from city,dated & signed by Associate City Attorney saying;
CITY'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S DICOVERY DEMAND,
CITY'S DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY AND
CITY'S WITNESS LIST

SAYING; enclosed information [X] Copy of citaion(s) and Officer's Notes [X] Witness list(see below) [SMD Certificate.

City's list of possible includes 1) officer 2)above named defendant 3)----(name of radar tech & facility adress).

PAGE 2 Computer Generated Copy of citation (front page only no notes or back copy).

Page 3 A Printed Copy of Officer's Statement ; certify (declare) under penalty of perjury under the law of WA, with additional notes that driver/violator/defendat saw him yet drove drove 46 in25 mph zone,[x]the driver had no idea of their own vehicle speed.

PLEASE NOTE :- How could be this cnsider a Legal Document/statement when officer has not signed & Dated & Place in the presence of NOTARY (No NOTARY STAMP OR DATE & SIGN OF NOTARY) ????.


Page 4 (2 parts/pages) (p1) RADAR Technician's certified Statement under oath of NOTARY PUBLIC . STAMPED, Signed, Dated & Place by BOTH TECH AND NOTARY.


I have Q regarding city's/plantiff's ON GOING DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY and summary of the expected testimony of defence witnesses from Defendant pursuant to IRLJ 3.1 (b).
While city says ; Any SMD certificate(if any) provided with this packet is a courtsey,and is not required under IRLJ 3.1(b).

PL NOTE:- I have read the IRLJ 3.1(b) ,I could'nt find a word(pls let me know if you find) that Defendant is required to provide a discovery and summary of expected testimony of defence witnesses to the plantiff. OR city/plantiff is not require to provide SMD certificates in the Discovery to the defendent persuant to IRLJ 3.1(b).


I have more Qs, thougts and discussion later in the next post

NOW , I checked the whole content of IRLJ 3.1. In part (a) it says;(a) Subpoena. The defendant and the plaintiff 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.


But city/attorney has reffferd me IRLJ 3.1(b) for their discovery demand which is not written in part (b) instead it is in the part (a) and only to subpoena the witnesses.

Q Can I ask the judge to reject/dismiss the city's demand based on Wrong Subclouse of statue/law, becouse IRLJ 3.1(b) only reffered to, Discovery. Upon written demsnd of the defendant

(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 plaintiff's lawyer shall at least 7 days before the hearing provide the
defendant or the defendant's lawyer with a copy of the citing officer's sworn
statement and with the names of any witnesses not identified in the citing
officer's sworn statement. If the prosecuting authority provides the citing
officer's sworn statement less than 7 days before the hearing but not later
than one day before the hearing, the citing officer's sworn statement 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 the citing officer's sworn statement, the
statement shall be suppressed. No other discovery shall be required. 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.

PL NOTE:- I haven't filed a request for officer's subpoena under rule persuant to IRLJ 3.3(C).

THIS IS VERY SIMPLE!~ the notice of infraction says the infraction was allegedly committed on the 12th, yet the "evidence" states that the infraction was committed on the 10th, this is a BIG PROBLEM! motion the judge to dismiss as the officers affidavit states a date that was two days prior to the date the infraction occurred according to the NOI.

If the judge does not grant your motion, ask the judge when he is determining the infraction allegedly occured, if he says the 10th, verify the filing date...(if its outside of the 5 day rule move for dismissal) for untimely filing of the NOI. I do not think you will even need to look at this, but good to keep in mind.

The discrepancies in the dates on the affidavit vs the NOI should be enough for a dismissal.

You dont need to respond to the discovery request that they sent you unless you have subpoenad witnesses. also if this case is in Seatac Municipal or KCDC, state v leach argument works as well! SEATAC MUNI==no prosecutor.

Also just wondering as an afterthought here. But are you looking at the notice of infraction make sure you are reading it correctly. In the top boxes it should say date of the infraction of 01-12-2010. Make sure you are looking at it as the violation date and issue date...the violation date near the top is critical. because they can issue a ticket at a later date.

ALSO as a side note, In Washington, Law Enforcement Officers have 24/7 General Authority. They can write you a ticket or haul your ass off to jail on the clock or not. Now, they are NOT required to act unless it is a felony in their presence, but if they choose to, they can enforce laws off duty...department policy may differ, but law does not, so i wouldnt even bother determining if the officer was "on duty" or not, because it will not change the outcome.

And on 1 more note, and BARRY you may find this interesting, is the most common 6.6 affidavits are prepared by Day wireless systems, where Mr Cole, the technition has his signature notarized, but he does not date it or inform location, in lieu of that he has it notarized. now i know there is case law that does not require the location but a friend of mine argued in Orting Muni that Mr cole had not met the requirements of rcw 9a.7.085. The notary is stating that she witnessed his signature, but the person making the statement did not meet the requirements and intern the judge surpressed and dismissed! i know its a long shot, but worth putting up here. I will give it a shot in the future should i be wrongfully accused of exceeding the posted speed limit. Needless to say, i am trying to be very cogniscent of my speed from here on out :-)

Welcome and Thank You Mr. Colemac65, For reminding me to double check the discrepancies in dates. I checked citation date is --/12/----,I confirmed it my own logs when I was working, but officer's sworn ? statement says --/10/----.
I'l take this my 1st motion for dissmissal in defence.

Since Officer's statement is not NOTARIZED by Notary Public,SIGNED & DATED by both officer & notary, is this LEGALY acceptable Document/witness in the court. (technicaly it's not under the oath).If not then I'l
consider this as a back up defence.

I couldn't have said it better than colemac65 myself. The officer's statement is a legal document. I wouldn't go after the statement in general unless you happen to find a court rule or law against what you described.

@colemac65: I'm pretty sure courts have taken judicial notice that an officer is not allowed to serve an infraction on a violator while off duty. I'm trying to find the exact reference to cite, but I'm having little luck. It could be State v. Leach... or maybe it's Seattle v. Peterson... I'm currently looking for it. I will post if I make any findings.

Brendan

I am not expert/ proffessional in this feild, not even gone to school for for English in U S. what I found here is; RCW 9A.72.085
Unsworn statements, certification.

Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, order, or requirement made under the law of this state, any matter in an official proceeding is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by a person's sworn written statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, the matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established, or proved in the official proceeding by an unsworn written statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, which:

(1) Recites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury;

(2) Is subscribed by the person;

(3) States the date and place of its execution; and

(4) States that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the state of Washington.

The certification or declaration may be in substantially the following form:


"I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct":
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Date and Place) (Signature)


This section does not apply to writings requiring an acknowledgement, depositions, oaths of office, or oaths required to be taken before a special official other than a notary public.


Q What is the purpose of this law ?

pardon my slow typing

My future fear is , in case prosecter finds the error of wrong date in officer's statement ,he ammends/corrects signs notarizes and mail to me before my court date. Can I Q the credability of new ammrnded statement becouse of change of element after filing in the court. I hope and pray that my fear will not become fact it will remain fiction

I am almost 98% sure that your fear will not become fact. If it does, you can express the confusion of the case and the Judge will understand. I highly doubt that the city prosecutor will amend the affidavit. He's got too much paperwork to worry about.

Brendan

Thank You Brendan from my heart. 98% surety is more than enough for me to be relax at this point. To cover up 2%, I am still considering multi-pronged defence for my-self in case one fails. This Web-site & you have inspired me and had Flared-up my Hunger for more reaserch in law. I'l come back as soon I find some legit points/shots for defence, untile then Pleeeeeease keep checking my posts. Thanks again.

Thank You Jazzgear, for your enthusiasm and spirit for helping others, but I agree with Barry's advice, because it is practical and based on the fact that defendant HAVE to subpoena the engineer and/or officer othervise their sworn statementa are admissible in the WA courts. I can see the differance between "criminal" and "Traffic Infraction" cases in wa. Mr.Jazzgear your strategey might possibally work in "criminal" cases,not in ifraction cases. One medication might good for one patience but not for other.infact it can harm. I cann't merely object the certificate unless I had filed a subpoena prior to 30 days of hearing, and if I subpoena the engineer I have to pay his time/cost in case I loose the battle+ I'm sending siganal to the prosecter to be prepare carefully for the fight.

Just think about a lost person asking direction to his destination and somebody give him wrong direction, how would you feel.

Anyway Thank You again for your help, but I'l stick to the Barry's advice.

jslabana, I don't believe you have to pay anything if you subpoena the SMD expert -- at least I didn't five years ago when I had my hearing. I don't see anything in the court rules that even permit such a fee. You could call the Clerk and verify that, but I'm pretty sure there's no fee.

And, thanks,

Barry

Barry you are right that if I WIN the case I don't have to pay smd expert Fee, BUT if I loose the case/battle than I havr to pay smd expert Fees. AS the Court Rule LIRLJ 6.6(d) SAYS
SPEED MEASURING DEVICE: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATION
Any person who requests production of an electronic
speed measuring device (SMD) expert, and who is thereafter
found by the Court to have committed the infraction, may be
required to pay the fee charged by the expert as a cost
incurred by that party, as provided in RCW 46.63.151.

I meant to say in my previous post# 27 that in case I LOOSE THE BATTLE then I have to pay smd expert. It has mentioned also in the cover page of discovery
I STILL APRECIATE YOUR CONCERN, THANK YOU BARRY .

Hmmmm. That's an interesting "local" rule. It is NOT in the state-wide IRLJ's. I really think that rule might get overturned on appeal, since the SMD expert, while subpoenaed by the defendant, is actually a prosecution witness -- one that the defense subsequently gets to cross-examine.

IRLJ 6.6, at least the way I interpret it, merely allows the prosecution to take a "shortcut" in authenticating the SMD device, which is required by ER 901. It is the prosecution's evidence which MUST be authenticated. This foundation can be established by an IRLJ 6.6 certificate or, if the defense insists, by the SMD expert who performed or supervised the tests.

Which court is this, just out of curiosity?

Barry

Barry, It is close to Airport, STI.