Washington State Speeding Ticket

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of Washington

Hello guys!!!

I got my speeding ticket back in February for doing 50 mph in 35 mile zone. I filed for contested hearing and sent my request for discovery. I got my hearing scheduled for next week and I'm trying to decide how I'm going to defend myself.

I noticed in the discovery that I received my case number is one digit off. Also, here is the officer statement:

On xx-18-2010 at 13:xx Hrs, I was working speed limit enforcement, in a fully marked patrol car and in uniform, with lidar laser on XXth Ave NE which is located in the City of Kenmore, King County, State of Washington. A Year Car Model, driven by Me was observed traveling at a speed over the maximum speed limit. The laser was directed on the subject's vehicle and I obtained a reading of 50 mp at a range of 209ft in a posted 35 mph zone. The reading consistent with my visual observations. An internal check and visual sight aliment check at 240 ft was performed with the laser before the stop and was found to be working correctly. I also conducted a distance check at 50' and 75' and found laser checked accurate. I'm trained and qualified lidar operator.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Thank you, Mike

Quote:

---

Quoting skyrocket101

---

I noticed in the discovery that I received my case number is one digit off.

---

Well, If every other information on the citation is correct, there shouldn't be a grounds for dismissal, or at least by ignoring it. If the rest of your information is written there, that is what they're going to flag on your records, so my best bet is to call them and notify about that mistake, and if they don't dismiss it (most probably not), they'll still assign you a court date.

Quote:

---

Quoting skyrocket101

---

I got my hearing scheduled for next week and I'm trying to decide how I'm going to defend myself.

---

The only explanation you seem to have to give to the court is about your incorrect case number, but that's pretty much it. What they'll most probably do is either still make you pay at that time, or reissue the ticket.

Is there no serial number listed on the affidavit for the SMD?

Quote:

---

Quoting jjb

---

Is there no serial number listed on the affidavit for the SMD?

---

Yes, there is.

Alright mike... One thing I found, and its a huge case breaker: The officer didn't say that he performed the test after the stop.

That's your best argument right now. Maybe try a subsection argument too if it applies? But I'm sure that if you argue that it needs to be tested BOTH before and after the stop, then you've got a dismissal.

Another thing: He did not say how he was trained and when he was trained in the use of LIDAR operation. Another valid point to bring up in KCDC.

Is the case number one digit off on the affidavit?

Brendan

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Is the case number one digit off on the affidavit?

Brendan

---

The case number is one digit off on the affidavit.

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Alright mike... One thing I found, and its a huge case breaker: The officer didn't say that he performed the test after the stop.

Brendan

---

That's a good point. Do you know what I can reference?

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

Another thing: He did not say how he was trained and when he was trained in the use of LIDAR operation. Another valid point to bring up in KCDC.

Brendan

---

It says that he is trained but there is no date...

Again, It doesn't say how and when he was trained. It only says that he was.

After the stop. Well, you could start off by looking in the manual of the SMD that was used. I guarantee it says something about it there.

But I would bring up the judicial notice argument. "Your honor, courts have taken judicial notice that the prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of and reasonably close in time to the arrest."

That should do the job.

Brendan

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

But I would bring up the judicial notice argument. "Your honor, courts have taken judicial notice that the prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of and reasonably close in time to the arrest."

---

Do you just make this crap up? Please post the case law, statute, or even court rule that you think corroborates this absurd statement.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

Do you just make this crap up? Please post the case law, statute, or even court rule that you think corroborates this absurd statement.

Barry

---

Barry, do you have any ideas?

skyrocket, can you send me the discovery request????? ill pm you with my email.....

I went to court today and my ticket got dismissed based on the motion that Cole (colemac65) came up with. I had total of 7 motions to supress the avidafit but it only took one. Thank you guys again!!!!!

Great job! What was the motion?

The motion had the following: officer observed the vehicle at a speed over the speed limit, but he didn't inform of any training or experience in the visual estimation. Also in the statement officer did not mention when or who tested the LIDAR before the stop. Also, the unit was not tested after the stop.

Congrads!!! told ya it would work!