Below is off the Washington State Courts Website
... Good luck though. I have two ticket next week I'm fighting.
SPEED MEASURING DEVICE: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
(a) In General. This rule applies only to contested hearings
in traffic infraction cases.
(b) Speed Measuring Device Certificate; Form. In the absence
of proof of a request on a separate pleading to produce an
electronic or laser speed measuring device (SMD) expert served on
the prosecuting authority and filed with the clerk of the court
at least 30 days prior to trial or such lesser time as the court
deems proper, a certificate in substantially the following form
is admissible in lieu of an expert witness in any court
proceeding in which the design and construction of an electronic
or laser speed measuring device (SMD) is an issue:
CERTIFICATION CONCERNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES OR LASER
SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
I, ____________________ do certify under penalty of perjury as follows:
I am employed with _______________ as a _______________. I
have been employed in such a capacity for _______________ years.
Part of my duties include supervising the maintenance and repair
of all electronic and laser speed measuring devices (SMD's) used
by _______________ (name of agency).
This agency currently uses the following SMD's:
(List all SMD's used and their manufacturers and identify which
SMDs use laser technology.)
I have the following qualifications with respect to the above stated SMD's:
(List all degrees held and any special schooling regarding the
SMD's listed above.)
This agency maintains manuals for all of the above stated
SMD's. I am personally familiar with those manuals and how each
of the SMD's are designed and operated. On __________ (date)
testing of the SMD's was performed under my direction. The units
were evaluated to meet or exceed existing performance standards.
This agency maintains a testing and certification program. This
(State the program in detail.)
Based upon my education, training, and experience and my
knowledge of the SMD's listed above, it is my opinion that each
of these electronic pieces of equipment is so designed and
constructed as to accurately employ the Doppler effect in such a
manner that it will give accurate measurements of the speed of
motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained
operator or, in the case of the laser SMDs, each of these pieces
of equipment is so designed and constructed as to accurately
employ measurement techniques based on the velocity of light in
such a manner that it will give accurate measurements of the
speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by
a trained operator.
(c) Continuance. The court at the time of the formal hearing
shall hear testimony concerning the infraction and, if necessary,
may continue the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining
evidence concerning an electronic speed measuring device and the
certification thereof. If, at the time it is supplied, the
evidence is insufficient, a motion to suppress the readings of
such device shall be granted.
(d) Maintaining Certificates as Public Records. Any
certificate, affidavit or foundational evidentiary document
allowed or required by this rule can be filed with the court and
maintained by the court as a public record. The records will be
available for inspection by the public. Copies will be provided
on request. The court may charge any allowable copying fees.
The records are available without a formal request for discovery.
The court is entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that
the document has been filed with the court. Evidence will not be
suppressed merely because there is not a representative of the
prosecuting authority present who actually offers the document.
Evidence shall be suppressed pursuant to subsection (c) of this
rule if the evidence in the certificate, affidavit or document is
insufficient, or if it has not been filed as required.
[Adopted as JTIR effective January 1, 1981; amended effective
September 1, 1989. Changed from JTIR to IRLJ effective September 1, 1992;
amended effective September 1, 1997; amended effective
October 31, 2000; amended effective January 3, 2006.]
Seattle Muni. My judge didn't like that argument. The prosecutor (viably taken aback by my request) stuttered and said that this is a certified copy that they give everyone in speeding cases, and that it's always been that way. The judge said that this creates a "looking into a mirror of a mirror of a mirror" scenario where we'd never get to the end of devices that need to be documented and that she had never heard this argument before. And that was it. She said the proper way to do this would be to subpoena Witt and question him. So she gave me a continuance to Feb 2.
I think i'm calling a lawyer. This is getting ridiculous.
They really wanted you to subpoena Witt? Do you remember the prosecutor's name? I've got someone in mind who really doesn't do the math on speeding cases... especially when it comes to subpoenas.
Subpoenaing Witt (Pros. pays Witt $60+/hr at Ct). Multiply that by an hour or two: $120+.
Add that to whatever the prosecutor has already spent on the case (45 min. x $40/hr) = $30.
Total cost of this case: $150+
I wonder if it's really worth that $4 they'll make off of you... hell, you can barely pay for a drink down here (FL) with that.
This is indicative of a problem with "technical" defenses -- the defendant is usually ill-prepared to argue beyond the initial motion. An attorney might have responded to the judge's comment about the "proper way to do this would be to subpoena Witt" something like:
I don't know how well that argument would have worked in this case -- even if an attorney made it -- it all depends on the judge. Anyway, let us know how this eventually works out.Your Honor, the prosecution has elected to avail itself of the privilege granted by IRLJ 6.6, namely, to submit an SMD certificate in lieu of requiring live testimony from the SMD expert. Since the Supreme Court allows an affidavit in lieu of testimony, I would submit that the affidavit MUST stand on its own. In point of fact, paragraph (c) clearly states, "If, at the time it is supplied, the evidence is insufficient, a motion to suppress the readings of such device shall be granted." IRLJ 3.3 (c) states that the Rules of Evidence apply to contested hearings. Mr. Witt COULD have indicated in his affidavit that he, personally, tested or supervised the testing of the Tektronix device. However, since he did not, his "testimony" violates ER 602, in that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that he had "personal" knowledge of the testing. I would submit to the Court that the remedy for this "insufficiency" is dismissal, pursuant to IRLJ 6.6 (c), NOT a continuance.
Oh yes, and during your investigation, see if the equipment & facilities (ie range used with lidar distance readings) are calibrated (if not, & the tech is a HS graduate & not an expert in anything) then when the tech is on the stand then you cross him until he cries .... bring a 100ft tape measure with you to check the distance calibration ,.. & a video camera , nothing says you cannot video tape the investigation processes. If the equipment used to calibrate the lidar unit is not calibrated then the calibration is junk science. Prepare a list of Q to ask the tech for the trial ... you may get lost during cross w.o. it. You should ask Q that you know the answer to (from your investigation efforts).
And I really think I'm at the point of getting a lawyer and just settling it for a non-moving and paying the fine. I'd rather do that then possibly lose and look at catching this citation PLUS my deferred one (i was actually speeding that time, albeit 5 mph over) on my record all at the same time. It's just discouraging. I really thought we were on to something...