Contesting Speeding Ticket in Jefferson County District Court

[surfjade]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington (Jefferson County)

**Bad luck since this is my 2nd ticket in a month. Prior to this my driving record was clean for over 4 years.

1st QUESTION:
The court first sent a notice that my "Contested Hearing" would be Nov 22. I received a second notice for my "Contested Hearing" for Dec 13. Both state it is a Contested Hearing and both have identical case numbers "WA IO6...." I'm not sure what to do since I just discovered this second notice while reviewing my discovery documents this morning (Saturday). Seems like the court screwed up.

2nd Question:
Discovery documents state that the SMD radar device is suppose to be tested every 2 years. The test log shows the device the officer cited in his written stated was last certified on Aug 8, 2008. My infraction is dated Sept 19 2010.
How do I request the case to be dismissed based on this evidence?

3rd Questions:
The officer also states in his written statement that he tested the SMD before and after stopping me. He doesn't say exactly when the device was tested and from reading other posts it could be argued that the tests weren't performed the day of the infraction.
Is this something I should also use?

Thanks!

[BrendanjKeegan]

1: You should go to the WA courts website and "find my court date." I'd generally go off of whatever that says. Maybe call the court to figure that one out if you get o luck with the website.

2: I don't know the whole story, so it's hard to help you draft a motion. Post up your discovery documents.

3: Yes. But post discovery anyway. You could be missing something.

[surfjade]

[surfjade]

[surfjade]

[surfjade]

[BrendanjKeegan]

Oh. Fun. You've got a lot to work with here.

Personally, I would first bring up that the affidavit was signed and dated more than A MONTH after the date of citation. How could the trooper CLEARLY remember all of the details that he put into the affidavit with such a great amount of time having lapsed in between?

If you can't get it dismissed on that alone, then you can move onto arguments about moving radar:
First of all, Moving radar must be calibrated with the cars speedometer. We have no proof that the radar was calibrated with the speedometer until a good three weeks after the citation date. How can the prosecution prove to a legal degree of certainty that the radar was in proper working order with the speedometer? Motion to dismiss as there is no evidence that the moving radar was accurate at the time of citation.

Second, What we've got here is a trooper claiming to be an expert on radar devices and the calibration of said devices. Date withstanding, the officer clearly testifies, "My patrol car's speedometer was certified for accuracy on 10-14-2010 by myself." When did this officer become a certified and trained technician for this specific unit? All of a sudden, he claims that he CERTIFIED it. How did he certify it? With what education can he CERTIFY it? And furthermore, why is his name not on the IRLJ 6.6 affidavit if he was qualified to certify the SMD? Can you imagine a doctor replacing the transmission on his car? Move for dismissal as there is no proof that the officer properly certified it nor does he have the proper authority to do so.

If you have no luck with those then you've got some more options:
He testifies to using one tuning fork: "I also checked the unit externally using a tuning fork(s)." In this case, we've got the use of 'A' instead of 'THE.' I don't want to get into a lesson on grammar but let's just say that one is used in a plural sense, while the other is used in a singular sense. The manual states (and most courts will side with this without being shown the manual) that in order to ensure that the device is working properly, the SMD must be checked with the use of TWO tuning forks.* Because the Trooper only used one of the tuning forks the prosecution can not prove with certainty that the radar device was in proper working order. Motion to dismiss for lack of proof that both tuning forks were used.

The trooper states that he used the "assigned tuning forks," but how can he be certain that they were the assigned tuning forks? In other words, there is no proof that he used the correct tuning forks as he did not state which tuning forks were used. He doesn't state definitively that he used forks 3956 and 3829. Move for dismissal as there is no proof that these forks were used.

At this time, I would throw in your motion for dismissal due to the indefinite time of testing.

I would go through those first. If they don't work, then I would use the argument against the date of calibration. Some might use this motion first, but hey, why not use the other motions so that the other people in court can use some of them if needed? The Dalai Lama once said: "Share your own knowledge: It's a way of achieving immortality."

Finally, if you end up with no luck on that, there's one other argument you can use. But I bet you won't need to. I'm not gonna explain it, but if you want to understand it do a search through the forums for Bellevue v. Mociulski. You're looking for a post by Blewis.

On the 13th, you'll be watching a district court judge through this case into the can. As always: Good luck!

--
*Different courts will interpret this differently when they take judicial notice of this. Some will interpret that the use of both tuning forks must always be used no matter what mode. On the other hand, there are courts who interpret this as meaning that one fork can be used if being operated in the stationary mode but both forks must be used if the SMD is being operated in the moving mode. Either way, you've got yourself a dismissal as the officer in this case specifies that he was in moving mode.

[surfjade]

Thanks for your help. I can't image not winning on one of these points.

Is this considered a pre-trial motion for dismissal based on lack of evidence?

And is it a motion to suppress and dismiss or just dismiss?

Thanks again!

[BrendanjKeegan]

Motion to suppress first, and then motion to dismiss. That would be the "correct" way of doing it.

But the judge will understand if you just say "motion to dismiss."

[davidmcbeth3]

The officer also stated that he tested the unit before & after your stop but not any specific time frame of when he tested (1 month before/1 month after??). I would motion to strike/suppress the "expert" as to his qualifications. An AS degree isnt going to cut it - no mention of any papers he was written in any science journals etc. His statement as a non-expert is not relevant to the case in the event the court sees its not an expert opinion. Or you could simply object to these issues at trial ... I would prepare a written motion just to be well prepared. Motion to strike all of the officer's declaration because it is full of legal conclusions, expert statements, and nowhere does he say he operated the unit per the manufacturer's instructions.