Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington

    I received a ticket for going 45 in a 35. At issue is the officer's statement. The officer's statement is:

    "I was using _L #1090, to monitor the speed of moving traffic. I visually observed the defendant traveling [x] Towards [ ] Away from my location. Based upon my experience and training, I visually estimated the defendant's speed to be in excess of the posted 35MPH Zone speed limit I placed the red dot sighting reticule on the defendant's vehicle and I'm 100 percent certain that the LIDAR reading was obtained on the defendant's vehicle. I tested the LIDAR unit both internally and externally at the beginning and end of my shift. I performed (1) the Heads-up Display alignment test; (2) the internal self diagnostic check; and (3) the fixed distance check at _100___feet. The LIDAR unit passed each of the required checks and was working properly at the time of this violation."

    So a few things I had issue was:
    (1) the clear and unobstructed view: Although he states that he had a clear and unobstructed view, I remember that when I was "speeding", there were three cars in the lane to my right (one of them being my friend). Is there any way I can challenge the officer's statement.

    (2) the officer tested the unit at the beg and end of the shift. I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I read somewhere that he needs to check it roughly immediately and after my stop. Is this true?

    (3) the best issue that I believe I have is the officer never stated his training/certification in using the Laser radar. What exactly is the best way to argue this point?

    Any other issues that you find would be of great help to me.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Quote Quoting gkim1985
    View Post
    (1) the clear and unobstructed view: Although he states that he had a clear and unobstructed view, I remember that when I was "speeding", there were three cars in the lane to my right (one of them being my friend). Is there any way I can challenge the officer's statement.
    How would that obstruct his view.
    (2) the officer tested the unit at the beg and end of the shift. I'm not sure what the exact law is, but I read somewhere that he needs to check it roughly immediately and after my stop. Is this true?
    Nope.
    (3) the best issue that I believe I have is the officer never stated his training/certification in using the Laser radar. What exactly is the best way to argue this point?
    Not required unless you specifically requested them. You can request them. You can ask in court, but I highly suspect unless something really bizarre has occured, he was trained on the LIDAR (it's not LASER RADAR).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Actually, I respectfully disagree. The prosecution is required to lay a foundation that the officer was indeed trained and qualified to operate said Lidar device. Officer only states that he was trained and qualified to make a visual estimate. He never testifies to being trained and qualified to operate an SMD, much less in the specific use of this device.

    I think you'll have success with that argument.

    As for your second argument, you can try it, but odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it. However, this is true in a handful of other states.

    Missouri is a prime example. See State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Quote Quoting BrendanjKeegan
    View Post
    Actually, I respectfully disagree. The prosecution is required to lay a foundation that the officer was indeed trained and qualified to operate said Lidar device. Officer only states that he was trained and qualified to make a visual estimate. He never testifies to being trained and qualified to operate an SMD, much less in the specific use of this device.

    I think you'll have success with that argument.

    As for your second argument, you can try it, but odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it. However, this is true in a handful of other states.

    Missouri is a prime example. See State v. Weatherwax, 635 S.W.2d 34 (Mo.App.1982); City of St. Louis v. Boecker, 370 S.W.2d 731 (Mo.App.1963).
    The question is : does WA require a proper foundation be laid for the admittance of the document or statement? Clearly, the foundation is lacking; the case cited above is just one of many detailing the need for laying a foundation but the need in laying a foundation can be eliminated with certain official proceedings (like tax assessment hearings etc.). So, is there case law in WA traffic tickets (not DUIs but like speeding) out there? I have searched google scholar to no avail (but google scholar is not the greatest - its OK but not as good as other legal resources like westlaw). If a WA case is available (the higher the court, the better ) many posters & lurkers may appreciate it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,901

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?

    And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet. The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?
    If you actually READ my post, I clearly state, "odds have it that you most likely will not get anywhere with it."

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet.
    That is completely wrong. The officer's statement IS his testimony. That is why he need not show up in court per IRLJ 3.3(C). Define it: "The statement made by a witness under oath or affirmation." Is it a statement? Yes. Is it made under oath? Yes. Is it testimony? Yes.

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.
    Wrong again. In fact, if you ask for a copy of the officer's training documents in discovery, you WON'T get it. So it is crucial that the officer state (in his TESTIMONY) that he is trained in qualified in THE SPECIFIC device.

    If it's not going to be of procedural importance then why can't I go out there, with my radar certification (assuming I had one) and use Lidar? It is no different that a 3-year old operating the device. TRAINING is a MUST. This argument has been made time and time again in our courts, and a majority of judges will uphold that argument.

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

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    And how is any case in Missouri relevant to Washington State?

    And your statement is loopy. Nobody has "TESTIFIED" to anything yet. The fact that there was no statement of the officer's training in the police report is meaningless. If this came up in court that the officer was not trained (or could not document it) that might be an issue. If it was requested in discovery and not provided, it might be an issue. However, at this point, the failure to note training is *NOT* going to be of any procedural importance.
    Flyingron & Brendan agree, I think, that training or lack thereof, would be an issue at trial. Its not procedural but will relate to evidence & testimony admission or admissibility. It can be properly raised as an objection to documents (to any documents relating to any statement of speed via objection/motion to strike individual lines of any written statement or the entire document); objection to testimony (same but strike testimony) ; objections to be made at trial. And I dont think it would matter if it was requested pre-trial but if requested & not responded to then this can be pointed out as further reason to sustain the objection(s). This all is in reference to laying a proper foundation for documents & testimony I think. Anyone can politely correct me if I am wrong.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    I guess the only thing I can try is bringing up the lack of testimony saying he was trained in the specific device. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Hearing is for next Thursday.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Was it signed?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: LIDAR Ticket in Pierce County

    Quote Quoting gkim1985
    View Post
    I guess the only thing I can try is bringing up the lack of testimony saying he was trained in the specific device. I'll let you guys know how it goes. Hearing is for next Thursday.
    How are you planning on doing this at trial??

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: LIDAR Ticket in Skagit County
    By marklab in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-30-2011, 04:59 AM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket in Pierce County Washington, Contested Hearing
    By Jay B in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-17-2011, 06:09 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: LIDAR Speeding Ticket in Snohomish County, Washington
    By cw12300 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 05:50 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Contesting Speeding Ticket in Pierce County District Court (with Discovery)
    By surfjade in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 04:12 AM
  5. Speeding Tickets: School Zone Ticket Pierce County Washington, Ticket Discrepancy, 300 Feet
    By jsmith in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 08:19 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources