Radar Affidavit Form for Police Officers

[blewis]

However, there seems to be some misconception in this conversation as to exactly what a radar affidavit is. The affidavit is NOT the officer’s sworn statement regarding the particular incident. All it is is a declaration, signed by the officer under penalty of perjury, that “these are the procedures that I am trained and required to follow – and I did so prior to and during this incident.” It is merely documentation of a routine, frequently repeated procedure. The OFFICER’S STATEMENT of the incident is on the citation itself.

Perhaps we're arguing symantics. IRLJ 3.1 (b) requires that the response to a discovery request include: "a copy of the citing officer's sworn statement". It looks to me as though you're saying there should be BOTH a RADAR affidavit AND a "sworn statement". But, as far as I can remember (and, please, take a look at this thread, this thread or this thread, as quick examples), not one single case has been presented in these forums containing BOTH a RADAR affidavit AND a separate "sworn statement" (of course, I'm old and my memory is not what it used to be -- and never has been! LOL!). The so-called RADAR affidavit contains the ENTIRETY of the officer's testimonial statement. So, in the cases I've linked to, and dozens of others, the "RADAR affidavit" is, indeed, the officer's "sworn statement".

Look at your own proposed affidavit. Once the holes are filled, there would be NO NEED for a separate "sworn statement". I like Carl's idea of a "comments" section.

Barry

[davidmcbeth3]

Because that's not his job or assignment. His job is not to police the TSA it is apparently to work traffic.
.

I would assume that his basic job is to enforce the laws of the state and to defend its constitution. Clearly, I have struck a nerve here .. local & state cops are afraid of federal employees? I always thought that the idea of arresting a federal agent/employee gets the locals giggles. Don't worry, this will change .. there are already discussions of local LEOs to start arresting TSA agents. It will happen, the question is when. And then what would the feds do? Nothing is my prediction.

I still have not seen the proposed document ...

[cdwjava]

I would assume that his basic job is to enforce the laws of the state and to defend its constitution.

And what part of a form, template, or boilerplate languages offends the Constitution or violates state law?

Clearly, I have struck a nerve here .. local & state cops are afraid of federal employees?

No. But, since neither the OP nor I work anywhere near an airport, it's hardly an issue we can address. Blaming the OP or I for the actions of TSA employees in jurisdictions far removed from our own is about as useful as blaming us for the collapse of the economy of Greece.

I always thought that the idea of arresting a federal agent/employee gets the locals giggles.

When I was in San Diego, the only feds I arrested were Corrections employees (a DUI and a couple of DVs) and a Mexican Fed (a Federale) who had too much to drink and decided it would be fun to pull a gun in a bar. I never got "the giggles" arresting anyone, much less a fed. Frankly, I found it rather tragic.

Don't worry, this will change .. there are already discussions of local LEOs to start arresting TSA agents. It will happen, the question is when. And then what would the feds do? Nothing is my prediction.

Those locals had best be careful what they do ... if they start TRYING to arrest TSA agents for conducting pat down searches, they will soon find themselves subject to the same criteria and subject to arrest when they pat-down suspects on the street. One of the elements of the criminal offense is generally that it has to be done to obtain sexual gratification.

However, TSA is NOT the subject of this thread. if you want to talk about that, we have a Banter category you are welcome to opine in. Here, the OP asked for input on a form he is constructing for the officers of his agency. I have recommended that he go to a forum where there are officers who have experience in such things (such as Police One) as there he will find people with the experience he needs. I doubt anyone here besides me has any real experience in this area, and I am not radar-certified, so I cannot be certain WHAT needs to be there under WA state law.

And the document was linked in Word in his last post (#17).

[davidmcbeth3]

Davidmcbeth3, Ok, here is the link to a .doc version.

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

I t

I would change the highlighted areas to be drop down menus. Possible the radar SMD make & model too. The affidavit would likely not stand up to scrutiny, the an/or is an issue at the affirmation area. There are many legal conclusions listed .. these could be attacked. Lots of errors I see, too many to mention .. I would object and ask that this document be stricken due to the over-numerous legal conclusions and other issues.

The x boxes have facts next to them, of course I would argue at trial the X boxes have no effect and that all of the facts are being affirmed as being factual...which creates issues with the document. Should not have facts listed which are not facts...make these drop-down menus & this issue goes away.

As it is, I like it, as a defendant.

One of the elements of the criminal offense is generally that it has to be done to obtain sexual gratification.

Its a felony .. w/o sexual context ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ltt...eature=related

[blewis]

I suppose you're going to say this is another of your "completely accurate" posts. Hmmmm. OP, please remember that davidmcbeth3 has ABSOLUTELY NO experience in WA courts, does not understand our laws, and he thinks he's RIGHT -- no matter how wrong he is:

I would change the highlighted areas to be drop down menus.

They ARE drop-down menus. Click on one and you'll see.

Possible the radar SMD make & model too.

Of no consequence.

The affidavit would likely not stand up to scrutiny,

That's one of two TRUE statements -- although the affidavit would not stand up for ANY of the reasons he's stated.

the an/or is an issue at the affirmation area.

Huh? I have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I recognize each of the words you've written, but those words, in THAT order, have no meaning.

There are many legal conclusions listed .. these could be attacked.

Name ONE "legal conclusion" -- or perhaps you don't understand what a "legal conclusion" really is.

Lots of errors I see, too many to mention ..

That's the other TRUE statement.

I would object and ask that this document be stricken due to the over-numerous legal conclusions and other issues.

You would provide the judge with a good laugh.

The x boxes have facts next to them, of course I would argue at trial the X boxes have no effect and that all of the facts are being affirmed as being factual...which creates issues with the document. Should not have facts listed which are not facts...make these drop-down menus & this issue goes away.

As I said, he has NO experience with WA law. In fact, check-boxes are perfectly acceptable in WA traffic courts. The only problems arise when you check contradicting boxes.

As it is, I like it, as a defendant.

That's why OP wants help fixing it.

Barry

[cdwjava]

Its a felony .. w/o sexual context ...

Not necessarily so ... it depends on the specific act, the intent of the suspect, and the elements of any relevant state law. Merely brushing or touching genitals, breasts, or even the buttox is NOT generally going to be criminal. Intent IS going to be a factor.

And in your video it describes an intentional battery against the TSA agent. While not a molestation, it would be a crime of battery (or assault - however it might be defined in the state in question). In my state this would likely have been a misdemeanor.

But, this has NOTHING to do with Washington State radar cites, does it?

[davidmcbeth3]

But, this has NOTHING to do with Washington State radar cites, does it?

Normally I would agree but the OP is not looking for true legal advice regarding an issue that the OP has..so I guess I am taking liberties at this point

[PTPD22]

Perhaps we're arguing symantics. IRLJ 3.1 (b) requires that the response to a discovery request include: "a copy of the citing officer's sworn statement". It looks to me as though you're saying there should be BOTH a RADAR affidavit AND a "sworn statement". But, as far as I can remember (and, please, take a look at this thread, this thread or this thread, as quick examples), not one single case has been presented in these forums containing BOTH a RADAR affidavit AND a separate "sworn statement" (of course, I'm old and my memory is not what it used to be -- and never has been! LOL!). The so-called RADAR affidavit contains the ENTIRETY of the officer's testimonial statement. So, in the cases I've linked to, and dozens of others, the "RADAR affidavit" is, indeed, the officer's "sworn statement".

Look at your own proposed affidavit. Once the holes are filled, there would be NO NEED for a separate "sworn statement". I like Carl's idea of a "comments" section.

Barry

Yes, we are arguing semantics, possibly because we are looking at the issue from two somewhat different viewpoints. The actual officer’s statement is on the back or page 2 of the citation where it says something to the effect of “Officer’s report for citation/notice of infraction...” It should say something about incorporating the attached documents (which include the smd affidavit). And, in all of the examples you gave (or with any NOI where speed is the ONLY issue), you are right that there is little or no need for any further narrative beyond what I hope to accomplish with a radar affidavit form (other than the info already on the front of the NOI like location, driver & vehicle info, etc.). But, if there are other issues (no insurance, child safety seat violation, additional moving violations, etc.), the officer’s statement on the back WOULD need additional narrative. And, if the stop turned into a criminal arrest (DUI, dope, weapons, dead body in the backseat, or whatever), an NOI for speeding might not even be issued. But, the speeding still establishes the legal reason for the stop. If the initial stop can be successfully attacked because of bad smd procedure, everything discovered during the stop becomes inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

As I said in a previous post, although I make a lot of traffic stops, I actually write very few NOIs. But, it is not uncommon for a speeding stop to develop into something more. In such cases, the officer’s statement would necessitate much more than just incorporating the smd affidavit by reference. The affidavit would only provide the minutiae of the legal reason for the initial stop that developed into that “something more.” The actual officer’s statement would be much more extensive and be in the narrative of the arrest report.

I suppose you're going to say this is another of your "completely accurate" posts. Hmmmm. OP, please remember that davidmcbeth3 has ABSOLUTELY NO experience in WA courts, does not understand our laws, and he thinks he's RIGHT -- no matter how wrong he is: . . .

Barry

LOL. I actually developed a rather strong impression along those lines on my own...and after reading a sampling of his posts in other threads, that impression has been unquestionably confirmed. It is actually rather amusing that he is so oblivious to his own ineptitude. It is clear that he is the kind of “street lawyer” that got his “education” from misconstruing statements made by his 2nd cousin’s brother-in-law who is a tax attorney and thinks that gives him the “inside scoop.” It is not only apparent that he has no actual knowledge regarding the subjects he interjects himself into, I also question if he is even very bright. After all he couldn’t seem to figure out for himself that “the highlighted areas” actually ARE drop-down menus or notice that right at the top of my form are spaces for smd make, model, and serial #. His completely off-topic (and rather bizarre) rants about TSA and abortion clinics cause me concern that there may be some untreated bi-polar or schizophrenia issues as well (of course, I’m not a psychologist. I just regularly deal with such issues OUTSIDE of the controlled environment of a hospital or mental care facility). At the very least there seems to be some ADHD issues.

But, I digress. LOL

cdwjava, thank you for your suggestion that I look for useful critique on a forum like PoliceOne. I should have thought of that myself as I am on the sight several times a week anyway. Guess it’s true when they say the mind goes first. And, mine has been going longer than I can remember...maybe memory is the second thing to go...can’t remember.

[colemac65]

hey PTPD22................just a thought. If a "boiler plate" is acceptable. Tell us this. What police agency do you work for???? I will personally print your original post, and present it to the presiding judge in your jurisdiction. Would the judge see "issue" with the fact that you are asking the public "advice" on how to write a pre printed "sworn affidavit" on that fixes all the "loop holes" and technicalities i dont care how many tickets you "dont write" you bring disgrace to your badge....pre printed form, that is going to be used as "evidence" in a court of law, yeah its an accepted practice, but you sir, are a moron, and in my opinion bring disgrace to those you "serve and protect" GFYS......and PS, i am merely assuming here but your profile indicates you are from Tacoma, and your screen name is PTPD22.....does that mean "Puyallup Tribal Police Department" if in fact, that is your "agency" well, that explains enough. You are all a bunch of crooked whack jobs anyway. If you dont work for the beloved puyallup tribe, well, your still an idiot in my book.

[cdwjava]

colemac65,

Your post was entirely uncalled for, offensive, and without merit. It has been reported to Admin.