ExpertLaw.com Forums

45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 04-12-2010, 03:47 PM
    59baer
    45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington
    I recently received a ticket for doing 45 in a 40 on a south King county road in Washington. I was on my motorcycle with a couple of cars behind me when I saw the motorcycle officer about ½ mile ahead (long straight stretch). I waved as I passed by (as most motorcycles do) and he immediately hit the lights and pulled me over. The officer had to delay getting off his bike while the two cars passed. When he came up I was informed that he had me pegged at 55 in the 40. I told him that I was doing the limit and he offered that these motorcycle speedos are typically off and that his reads 40 when he is doing 47. He said he would give me a break and write it for 45 in the 40.

    I made the discovery request and asked for the officers statement, officer’s log, maintenance and calibration records for the radar unit and the tuning forks, any training and certification records, etc. I only received the officers statement and the certification for the radar detector and tuning fork (all one certification from Day Wireless Systems in Everett WA).

    I had a couple of questions on the right way to attack this one:

    1. The officer’s statement lists the reading of 55 yet the ticket is for 40. Since the two reflect different numbers, can I get the statement excluded since I am cited for 40 yet the statement lists 55? Or will the judge simply look and determine that the officer was trying to give me a break and blow that one off?
    2. The officer’s preprinted form states “The above listed radar unit was checked both internally and externally. The above listed tuning fork was used for the external check. This was done before the violation contact and the radar was found to be working properly. I am a Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission trained and qualified Radar and Lidar operator.” Since it does not state that the testing was done immediately before and immediately after, can I get the officer’s statement tossed? Also, it simply states “before” and I have no indication if this was 2 seconds, or 2 months before. Will either approach work?
    3. In the officers statement, it does not list how far away I was when he picked me up on Radar. I have seen threads where this is a concern. Can I suppress for no distance on the Radar being listed?
    4. The officer’s statement consistently uses the word “I” for much of his statement (e.g., “I aimed” or “I observed”, etc.). However, as shown on item 2 above, we simply know that the Radar unit was checked but it does not say it was by the officer. Can I get this tossed for that?
    5. I did not receive the officers training records, ticket log, maintenance records for either the tuning forks or the radar unit. Is this worth pursuing? Where would I get them? Is there an angle to work here?
    6. If all else fails, will I have much luck with the “it was likely one of the two cars (bigger objects) that were coming up behind me rather than that little old motorcycle that I was riding that showed up on his radar?
    7. What other suggestions do you have?

    I look forward to your response.
  • 04-12-2010, 05:37 PM
    BrendanjKeegan
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    As of now, numero uno is a death wish. Don't use it.

    Numero dose is good. Use the fact that he didn't state the time before. Courts in washington require that it be within a reasonable amount of time. I don't see that reasonable amount of time being met because there is no time listed.

    Number 3: I haven't seen a problem with no location and radar, (it's normally lidar because lidar manuals say that the object being measured has to be within a certain distance) but you could use this argument as a back up.

    Number 4: I do recall that the officer has to have "specific knowledge" that it was tested. I'm doing this really quickly and don't have time to do a lot of research, so maybe Barry or Cole may have something to say about that. I think the case to look up is Seattle v. Peterson. However I do not know exactly as I am not home on my computer with all of my case law.

    Number 5: I wouldn't pursue that too much. As WA law does not require the prosecution to present that evidence. The court can simply assume all of that.

    Number 6: "It may have been another car" arguments don't work too well. Stick with breaking the chain of evidence rather than proving your innocence.

    7: Post up the docs you received and we'll all have a look. Maybe we'll find something else. Is it a written ticket or an e-ticket?

    Brendan
  • 04-12-2010, 07:05 PM
    59baer
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    Thanks Brenden. I would love to post the docs but I can't figure out how. Is there a link that will tell me? The "posting rules" tells me that I may not post attachments. I tried to figure out the images from http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/faq....l&titlesonly=0
    but I never see the "Manage Attachments" button so I must be missing something.
  • 04-13-2010, 07:06 AM
    blewis
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    You CANNOT upload images directly to the forum. If you look at the "Posting Rules" box in the lower left corner of any page, you will see "You may not post attachments". So, in order to post an image, you must go through a file hosting service, such as "tinypic" or "photobucket". Once you've done that, the hosting service will provide you with the url for your image. You can place the url link within "IMG" tags, or just post the url. The easiest thing to do is to use an example:

    Look at this post. Scroll all the way down. In the bottom right corner is the "quote" button. Click it, scroll to the bottom of the "message" box, and you will see EXACTLY how to apply the reference tags to your files.

    Barry
  • 04-13-2010, 07:34 AM
    59baer
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    Thanks for the quick feedback.

    Here is their response letter:
    http://i44.tinypic.com/295srv6.png

    Here is the officer's statement:
    http://i41.tinypic.com/14alens.png

    And, this is the radar and tuning fork certification I received:
    http://i42.tinypic.com/25znf6d.png


    Thanks again in advance for your help.
  • 04-13-2010, 12:18 PM
    BrendanjKeegan
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    First of all, how do you have clear weather and a wet road...?

    Second: I'm not completely sure that the Kustom Talon falls into this category, but a vast majority of radar SMDs need to be tested by (and come with) more than one tuning fork. Notice that this site even says it comes with tuning FORKS not a fork. So that may be a valid point to bring up. Maybe somewhere in the manual it has information about the tuning forks to calibrate the SMD.

    Third: This is a fairly strong argument. The officer said he was trained to use Radar and Lidar, but it doesn't say he was trained in the SPECIFIC USE of the Talon radar. Further, he doesn't say when he was trained. He could have been trained 40 years ago and never had received a class since. Because of the advances of technology, he could not even know how to use the system.

    Fourth: I would definitely bring up the fact that he never said who tested it and when. It simply says that it was tested. Again, see "reasonable amount of time."

    If you would, post up the ticket so we can see if there are any errors on that.

    Brendan
  • 04-13-2010, 12:29 PM
    59baer
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    Here is the Ticket itself. There was also a blank officer report that was sent to me that was blank.
    Thanks again for all your help.

    http://i42.tinypic.com/314rwgn.png
  • 04-13-2010, 01:14 PM
    blewis
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    The Kustom Talon comes in two flavors. One has "fastest" mode, the other (mostly older units -- when it was an "optional" feature) doesn't. If the unit has the "fastest" mode feature, it SHOULD have TWO forks (see section 5.4.4 on page 5-3 of the IACP Manual). Otherwise, it will only have one.

    I'm not sure whether they even still sell the unit without "fastest" mode.

    Barry
  • 04-13-2010, 01:24 PM
    59baer
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    I just found a copy of the Kustom Talon Radar Manual
    http://www.kustomsignals.com/pdf/Talon_om.pdf

    Brenden, you are brilliant. Page 20 of the manual shows that the tuning fork test requires the use of both the 35 MPH and the 55 MPH tuning forks.

    So, at this point, I should be planning to suppress the officers statement and then move for dismissal based on:
    1. The officer states that he was trained on Radar/Lidar but does but doesn't specify he was trained in the SPECIFIC USE of the Talon radar. Further, he doesn't say when he was trained.
    2. Radar detector was not tested immediately before and immediately after.
    3. Officers statement of "before" is indeterminate on how long before and fails being a reasonable time.
    4. Per the manual, testing should have included both the 35MPH and 55 MPH tuning forks but it did not. In fact, the 35MPH tuning fork is completely absent.
    5. Officer does not state that he personally conducted the test.

    Are there others? Any case law references I should be prepared to cite?

    Barry,
    Thank you as well. Looks like you responded while I was typing up my summary regarding the Talon manual.
  • 04-14-2010, 10:48 AM
    BrendanjKeegan
    Re: 45 in a 40 on Radar in King County Washington
    Barry, Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the regular unit and the unit with the "fastest" mode?

    Also, what are your thoughts that he was cited for subsection (2). I think that he might be able to argue that subsection two does not create a separate citable offense, but that's probably a long shot.

    OP, offering the manual as evidence can be rather bothersome, but work hard and you most likely will be able to get pages nineteen and twenty added as evidence. Also, Don't use the words "immediately." Say "within a reasonable amount of time."

    Also, Barry pointed out on another thread that there are no rules in WA that require a test to be done after the stop. Personally, I think that this is outrageous. Missouri and Ohio have both stated in cases that went to their supreme court that tests must be performed before and after the "arrest." However, WA does not have this law. But there is a catch. In a few opinions delivered by the supreme court of WA, I have noticed that a couple of the justices have cited OH and MO case law. I don't know if you can go on that basis that there courts seem to be respected by the WA Supreme Court but it may be worth a shot. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Even if I were to argue this, I understand that this argument is EXTREMELY weak.

    Does the number on the NOI and the number on the statement match up?

    Brendan
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved