Contesting a Ticket for Speeding 5 MPH Over Limit

[dudesky]

Consider yourself lucky. It said the unit was tested, but does not specify WHO tested the unit. ("Was tested", not "I tested the unit"). Likewise, it does not state the qualifications of the person testing/calibrating the unit.

Move to suppress evidence. Print a copy of Bellevue v Mociulski http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,48

2] In fact, the authentication of the speed measuring device involves a compound determination. Before the machine is deemed reliable, the witness testing the machines or monitoring the testing must first show his/her 861*861 qualifications to make and/or evaluate the tests. The witness must first qualify as an expert via knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. ER 702. After the witness has qualified as an expert, he/she must show that the machines passed the requisite tests and checks. Only then can the speed measuring devices be deemed reliable. Again, the questions concerning the expert's qualifications are preliminary matters governed by ER 104.

Can anyone suggest the best wording to move to suppress the NOI?

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Officer Kare made a rather glaring mistake. (S)he did not in any way, shape, or form clearly state that the patrol vehicle was in motion. If it cannot be established by the officer's statement that the patrol vehicle was in motion, then it CANNOT be established that moving mode was the correct mode, and you should argue that the radar evidence should deemed insufficient. Also, as dudesky said above, officer Kare does not state that (S)HE performed the tests on the unit. Someone else could have done it for all we know.

Can anyone suggest the best wording to move to suppress the NOI?

Suppress the NOI how? It isn't the NOI that should be suppressed. The NOI is a pleading, not evidence. It's the radar evidence that he should attempt to get suppressed.

[blewis]

Dudesky is right about the "passive" voice concerning the testing. Some courts will accept that argument, others will not. However, Mociulski ONLY applies to the "certification" of the instrument -- that it was designed and constructed to yield accurate speed readings -- NOT the "daily" calibration check. In fact, there is case law which states that officers DO NOT have to be "experts". They simply have to know how to use the device. A better authority would be ER 602, which states:

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony.

When using passive voice (e.g., "was tested"), there is no WHO. Therefore, there is NO evidence that the officer did, indeed, have personal knowledge of that testing. He did not state that he performed it, supervised it, or even observed it. Testimony based upon what someone else told you is hearsay, and, therefore, not admissible.

Barry

[93rdcurrent]

Here are my questions:

1) He never had a clear line of sight on me until he came around the corner which is surrounded on both sides by massive amounts of vegetation, brush and large trees and a hill on his side of the road. How long does he need to observe someone driving before he could decide if I was speeding?

2) My RADAR detector never went off. The only way I can assume that is possible would be if he was using the "POP" mode. As I understand it there is a section in the MPH BEE III manual that disclaims law enforcement officers from using this mode because it only turns on for .67 miliseconds and in doing so doesn't comply with FCC, the joint International Association of Chiefs of Police or NIST guidelines for "tracking a vehicle speed." As I said my detector never alerted me to any RADAR band at all. Can I ask that the owner's manual and the notes from the company be submitted in the court as evidence? How can I get a copy of the owner's manual? Couldn't find it on the internet.

3) My fiance was a witness to the statements made by both me and the officer. Would her testimony about the inaccuracy of statements made by Trooper Karre in the report mean anything in court?

Thank you everyone for your responses and I do think that I will use some of your advice. Please respond to my above questions as I think there may be something there to use as well. I am also going to request whether the officer has a quota to meet. He hangs out in this spot at the end of every month it looks like. Can I bring up his quota (assuming he has one) and the fact that it may lead to using unethical measures to meet it, ie. Pop Mode RADAR? It seems like a good way to approach ending quotas all together, starting with the Washington State Patrol. I don't know if this makes a difference but my RADAR detector is the Escort Passport 8500 X50 and is designed to alert me of the POP mode. It is right up there at the top in tests performed to detect this type of RADAR mode. The tests show that it works 80% of the time at 4500 ft. through to 3000 from his vehicle. He didn't have that much room as I was about 1/4 mile away when he came around the corner. Close enough for certain that if he was using a continuous mode I would have certainly picked him up.

Well I'm off to go take pictures of the area where he appeared and to try and figure out exactly where he was hiding at so I can photograph that as well...

[dudesky]

Also 93rdcurrent, according to the trooper's sworn statement, you admitted guilt. You said you were going 55, but speed limit was 50. 55 in a 50 is still against the law. Next time, best use the 5th amendment, and avoid making statements to incriminate yourself. Also, learn about the 4th amendment, just in case. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[93rdcurrent]

Also 93rdcurrent, according to the trooper's sworn statement, you admitted guilt. You said you were going 55, but speed limit was 50. 55 in a 50 is still against the law. Next time, best use the 5th amendment, and avoid making statements to incriminate yourself. Also, learn about the 4th amendment, just in case. Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Actually I stated I was going 50 mph. He mis-quoted me. I can request any audio recordings if he was equipped. I did request any video he may have had and the court clerk told me that they are not equipped with cameras. She didn't offer anything about audio however. Didn't think that one through all the way. I am on my way down to the courthouse to request discovery on the user's manual for the RADAR device and the calibration history. I will include any recording device that may have been used by the officer at the time of incident.

[dudesky]

You can't get the manual through discovery, and it's probably not onfile with the court. If you want the manual, request it from the PD directly, through a public records request. You will be charged for the PR request. You can request a manual under RCW 42.56.073 (c). The PD have 5 days to RESPOND to your inquiry (that means respond, not provide you the information).

Keep in mind, that manuals are written to be useless to the defense.

[93rdcurrent]

I went to section of road where I was just leaving one corner as the officer was coming around the next one. I photographed the road and the two corners. This should show that the officer had no chance to see me, estimate my speed and then hit the button. There simply wasn't enoough time for him to do all of that and get an accurate register on my speed.

I went down to the courthouse and put in my subpeona for the officer in court. You are right they wouldn't give me the manual or the officer's certification on the RADAR from there. They sent me to the WSP office where they gave me yet another form to fill out and as Dudesky said, they have 5 days to respond and that doesn't mean they will have it. They were less than friendly at the office knowing what I was asking for as well. I was just shy of thrown out by the trooper who was working the counter. Especially after I asked if they had audio or video recordings of the encounter... he didn't like that AT ALL. The prosecutor's office gave me several device certifications for the maintenance on several devices but after I went through the paperwork none of it was for the model or serial number of the trooper's gun. I guess I will have to go back and figure that one out. I know they should have that in their records and why I was given the certification for 3 other type of guns and not the one the officer was using is a little odd. I let the court know that I would be bringing in my own witness who was a passenger in the car.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Don't even think of relying on that argument. It takes RADAR under a second to obtain your speed. It takes about a second to visually estimate your speed. So you're trying to argue that he didn't have enough time within two seconds to get your speed? Sorry, no. Not a valid defense. Period.

If the RADAR cert wasn't on file with the court, then the PROSECUTOR must supply it to you. If they fail, and the court does not have it on file, then you can object to the RADAR evidence because the device cannot be authenticated. The court should have it on file, and the clerk should have directed you to their binder full of RADAR/LIDAR certifications for the WSP. The OFFICER is not the person who certifies the RADAR. That is performed by the WSP's certification personnel (Steen Nicholson, Anthony Hilcock) every two years, per the state's own testing program requirements.

That said, hopefully the original poster (Marcusarillius) filed his discovery request. You pretty much hijacked his post.

[BrendanjKeegan]

If it were me, I would exploit the fact that Mr. Kare didn't indicate that the "Patrol Speed" window on the SMD did not match that of his speedometer. I would think to go to that before using Case Law, especially since WSP seems to be changing their practices - their website has the list of each Certifying Official.