Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    1,534

    Default Radar Affidavit Form for Police Officers

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

    Ok, I know that this might seem like a strange request as Iím sure that most of you see me as the enemy. Lol.

    But, I am a police officer in Washington State and, as part of a general departmental policy & procedure revision, I have created a ďRadar AffidavitĒ form for officers to use. I know that there are some pretty knowledgeable and experienced people here and was hoping that a few of you could take a look at it. Are there any glaring loopholes or errors? Is there anything missing that should be there? Is there anything exploitable in the wording, etc? I would appreciate some knowledgeable critique and input.

    The file is a Word 2007 (.docx) form with fill-in-the-blank and pull-down selections. You can download the file (if I have done it correctly) from:

    <a href=http://www.filedropper.com/ptpd-27v1radaraffidavit><img src=http://www.filedropper.com/download_button.png width=127 height=145 border=0/></a><br /><div style=font-size:9px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;width:127px;font-color:#44a854;> <a href=http://www.filedropper.com >file upload</a></div>

    Thanks in advance for any input.

    If that link doesn't work, try:

    http://www.filedropper.com/ptpd-27v1radaraffidavit

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    This is a "Community Forum". It was created so that people who want help can come here and ask questions. Others try to help by answering. Sometimes you can get some good advice, sometimes it's not so good. Remember the old expression: You get what you pay for.... MOST people who come here are trying to get OUT of paying tickets -- some are even "innocent". You are the first person -- to my knowledge -- who has come here actively seeking to GIVE people tickets.

    Several of our Senior Members are, indeed, Law Enforcement Officers. They come here to help people -- you've apparently come here to "hurt" people. Heck, there's a chance you could use my help to issue ME a ticket!

    As such and as far as your form goes, I'll say that there are MANY "glaring loopholes" -- and I mean MANY! But, that's as much as I'm willing to say. If you want to learn more, I'd suggest you start reading. There are, literally, hundreds of threads about traffic tickets in WA on this forum. Feel free to go through them.

    Hah, I just thought of something. You COULD have come here claiming to have gotten a ticket, "filled out" your form as though it was issued to you, and let us rip it apart. Well, I'll give you credit for being honest and "up front". In exchange, I'll point out ONE of the "glaring loopholes": to my knowledge, EVERY "moving mode" RADAR manual states that in moving mode, you should verify that the "Patrol" speed on the RADAR agrees with the vehicle's speedometer. Such a statement is missing from your form (you have the optional "pacing" statement, but that's not the same thing). Without that statement, you cannot show that you were using the device according to the manufacturer's instructions.

    The others you'll have to find on your own. Sorry -- I guess honesty only goes so far....

    Barry

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    OH10
    Posts
    17,019

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Welcome!!! I am not an expert in areas of your questions, however, as Barry mentioned, using the search feature will aid you in your quest, in addition to answers you receive. In regard to your LEO status, I have found most LEOs attempt to be very fair in their dealings with the public. Your quest to perfect your craft is admirable.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    1,588

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Most people don't have the new word version .. so even if people wished to reply, they cannot.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    Several of our Senior Members are, indeed, Law Enforcement Officers. They come here to help people -- you've apparently come here to "hurt" people. Heck, there's a chance you could use my help to issue ME a ticket!
    I believe that most people would find it to be a good thing for police agencies adopt good forms and procedures such that they can avoid making mistakes. To the extent that enforcement of traffic laws hurts people who are stopped, on the whole it's a good thing that the nation's roads and highways aren't a free-for-all.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    I believe that most people would find it to be a good thing for police agencies adopt good forms and procedures such that they can avoid making mistakes. To the extent that enforcement of traffic laws hurts people who are stopped, on the whole it's a good thing that the nation's roads and highways aren't a free-for-all.
    I think that a person's statement should be just that : that person's statement .. not some boilerplate poppycock.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Quote Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    I believe that most people would find it to be a good thing for police agencies adopt good forms and procedures such that they can avoid making mistakes. To the extent that enforcement of traffic laws hurts people who are stopped, on the whole it's a good thing that the nation's roads and highways aren't a free-for-all.
    In theory, that all sounds good. But, here's the problem: In WA there is NO requirement for the officer to appear at the hearing. The evidence against you is a "sworn statement". This system was created, "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every infraction case." (IRLJ 1.1 (b)) You may have noticed, therefore, that we "nitpick" officer's statements in order to assure that THEY have complied with the various cases, rules and laws. If the police were to develop a "bullet-proof" boilerplate (and that's what OP is trying to do), defendants would have no recourse but to subpoena each and every officer. Otherwise, you're AUTOMATICALLY guilty because the officer submitted a "bullet-proof" statement. Issuing subpoenas would cause delays (as hearings have to be scheduled around the officers' schedules) and INCREASE costs (plus defendants would probably have to hire an attorney to successfully cross-examine the officer) -- quite contrary to the "intent" of the rules. Plus, as davidmcbeth3 stated:

    Quote Quoting davidmcbeth3
    View Post
    I think that a person's statement should be just that : that person's statement .. not some boilerplate poppycock.
    How rare -- I actually, totally AGREE! I'm opposed to permitting ANY "form" to be submitted as a "sworn statement". There's too much opportunity for abuse. When the form says, "I checked the calibration of the SMD before and after my shift", did the officer ACTUALLY do it? Who knows? It's in the boilerplate, so it MUST be true. Or, as I suggested above, if there's a statement that the PATROL speed agreed with the vehicle's speedometer, did it REALLY? No one will EVER really know for sure. But, it's in the boilerplate, so it MUST be true. Even if there were just a checkbox, it might make it a little more acceptable. Or, how about when a form says "I have been trained and certified in the use of this SMD", was the officer REALLY? In CA, for example, I believe the officer MUST show up and MUST show his/her certifications. In WA, as long as it's in the boilerplate, it's considered absolutely TRUE. I have great respect for our court system and for law enforcement. However, I'm not so naive as to believe people won't take "shortcuts" when they're available.

    I've been reading and posting in this forum for a very long time (even longer than you, Mr. Knowitall). I've seen several "sworn statements" that were pretty good, some even excellent. Could I create a totally bullet-proof "sworn statement"? Probably. But, would I want to? NOPE!

    Barry

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    It's in the boilerplate, so it MUST be true.
    Barry
    Its a verified statement ... when one has a boilerplate statement then the officer can just say "I'm ordered to use it". The verification loses any veracity ... as no DA is going to arrest the officer for perjury (and I don't blame them).

    And the boilerplate form would likely need to be several pages in length with most information being not applicable. I have an an issue with providing information in a statement that is not relevant. Now a defendant must not only read ten thousand words but get a clear understanding of what is applicable in his specific case AND a judge is going to have the same problem. Judges would just rubber stamp guilty and let the defendant go to the next step.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    South-Central Cali
    Posts
    1,274

    Default Re: Anyone Want to Help the Enemy

    I agree with MrKIA's position in spirit, but Barry's approach is the right one in the context of WA "traffic court" law...

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    In CA, for example, I believe the officer MUST show up and MUST show his/her certifications.
    Well, in our trial by declarations the officer can check off boxes in the form regarding training, calibration, etc. and then include his statement, all under penalty of perjury. I don't believe judges require any other documentation but that form.

    At trial (or trial de novo from a losing TBD), you're correct. But: while evidentiary rules implicitly require that proof of training (i.e. correct operation) and accuracy (calibration + self-test) be provided, there's no case law or statute that says so, except in a very, very limited scenario*. So, if the officer is not forthcoming, and the judge doesn't request it on his own, you MUST object appropriately to this lack of foundation or forfeit the right to have those things proven.

    ___________
    * when radar/lidar was used to enforce a prima facie speed limit (i.e. non-freeway) AND the traffic survey was more than five years old.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Police Officers Being Bribed
    By Legal_Inquiry in forum Debate the Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-07-2010, 10:15 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Validity of Officers Affidavit
    By revenue source in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-02-2009, 01:57 PM
  3. Criminal Investigations: Officers Don't Believe Police Report
    By robatctel in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 11:38 PM
  4. Police Conduct: Harassment by Police Officers
    By Arf417 in forum Police Investigations
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 04:03 PM
  5. Marriage: Form I-864, Affidavit Of Support, and Income Tax
    By robnyc1 in forum Visas for Business, Tourism and Family
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-22-2007, 06:41 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources