Speeding Ticket in Washington State, Whitman County

[gaste]

I recently received a speeding ticket in Whitman County of Washington Sate on State Road 26.

Here's a link to the discovery that was supplied:
http://s1058.photobucket.com/albums/...ding%20Ticket/

This is my first time contesting a speeding ticket and I have no experience dealing with any legal proceedings so please bear with me. After spending some time scouring the forums, these are my initial thoughts:

1) In the officer's written affidavit he states that he was operating stationary radar. However, nowhere else in his statement does he specify if his vehicle was indeed stationary as well. His note of "eastbound. stationary" on the Notice of Infraction seems extremely ambiguous to me.

2) His statement says that the SMD's calibration was tested before and after each duty shift. However, it does not explicitly state that Officer Cox performed the testing. It is, to the best of my knowledge, Washington State Patrol's policy to check calibration before and after each stop. However, I do not know what policy the Whitman County Sheriff's Office demands of it's deputies. Where might I find the information regarding this specific departmental policy?

3) I have not yet had the opportunity to check the certification of the SMD used as I just received the discovery material and the certificate is on file with the court. I couldn't find any reference online to the SMD certification. The county clerk's website only listed BAC certifications. Am I correct in thinking that the things I should be looking for are: a) making sure the certificate is less than two years old and b) making sure the tuning fork numbers supplied in the officer's sworn statement match the ones listed in the certificate? Also, where would I find these materials within the courthouse itself?

Are there any arguments that I missed that might be prudent to my hearing? Also, how might I word my arguments in court? I plan to observe traffic court before my hearing so that I may become a little more accustomed to the environment and general proceedings but I'd like to have a solid attack plan beforehand.

Thanks in advance for the help!

[davidmcbeth3]

Did your ticket have the address of the court on it? If not, see this posting:

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136299

Missing address may make the ticket invalid.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Arguments you can potentially use:

The officer never gives his actual location. He only states "Eastbound. Stationary" on the middle page.

The officer never says that he had a clear and unobstructed view of your vehicle.

The officer does not state WHICH antenna was being used. Maybe the wrong one was in use, and the vehicle being measured was approaching from the other direction. We don't know, and can't ever know, because officer Cox does not say which antenna he used.

"The calibration of the RADAR was tested before and after each duty shift". Really? When? And by whom? It cannot be established the officer Cox did this himself nor that he has personal knowledge of the calibration results. His statement about the calibration should be deemed hearsay.

The RADAR's calibration was not checked immediately before or immediately after the stop.

Other:

The officer gives a SERIAL number rather than a tag. Hmm... that's a bit hard to look up considering that there are several hundred of them in use.

[gaste]

Well I was pulled over by a Whitman County Sheriff's Deputy so I'm assuming his notation of "#38" will properly identify the RADAR device in question upon my examination of the records at the courthouse.

At this point in time I feel like bringing the legitimacy of the RADAR calibration into question is my strongest argument. Any other thoughts?

[blewis]

Well I was pulled over by a Whitman County Sheriff's Deputy so I'm assuming his notation of "#38" will properly identify the RADAR device in question upon my examination of the records at the courthouse.

That may be the case, or "#38" COULD refer to the officer's vehicle number. It's hard to tell. Most likely, however, the RADAR certification will be filed by serial number.

At this point in time I feel like bringing the legitimacy of the RADAR calibration into question is my strongest argument. Any other thoughts?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the legitimacy of the RADAR calibration".

I'd like to expand a little on Speedy's arguments -- basically rearrange some of the information and add a few things I noticed:

The officer never gives his actual location. He only states "Eastbound. Stationary" on the middle page.

Actually, I think Speedy missed the officer's statement, "on SR 26 near MP 108" will be sufficient as an "actual location". However, his lack of precision plays into "tracking history" argument below.

The officer never says that he had a clear and unobstructed view of your vehicle.

This is NOT all that important when using RADAR. If it were LIDAR, this becomes an issue. RADAR, however, is based more on a "proper tracking history" (which is missing, see below), than on a "clear and unobstructed view".

The officer does not state WHICH antenna was being used. Maybe the wrong one was in use, and the vehicle being measured was approaching from the other direction. We don't know, and can't ever know, because officer Cox does not say which antenna he used.

By itself, this is only a minor point. But, when we combine the above arguments with the fact that the officer did NOT state which side of the road he was on, which way he was facing, whether you were approaching or receding, OR that the RADAR reading and the audio tone were CONSISTENT with his visual observations. Thus, he does NOT demonstrate a "proper tracking history".

"The calibration of the RADAR was tested before and after each duty shift". Really? When?

This argument won't go anywhere, as the officer states "EACH duty shift". In other words, EVERY duty shift. That's a good indication of "when".

And by whom? It cannot be established the officer Cox did this himself nor that he has personal knowledge of the calibration results. His statement about the calibration should be deemed hearsay.

This argument has been received with some success. I'd give it 30% - 40% chance of success.

The RADAR's calibration was not checked immediately before or immediately after the stop.

This is NOT a requirement -- I highly doubt you can find legal authority for this assertion. The landmark case on this issue (Spokane v. Knight, 96 Wash. 403, 165 Pac. 105 (1917)) only states that devices must be "periodically" checked. NO case, law, or rule states that testing is REQUIRED immediately before AND after EACH stop.

Other:

The officer gives a SERIAL number rather than a tag. Hmm... that's a bit hard to look up considering that there are several hundred of them in use.

Again, I think you WILL be able to look it up by serial number. If not, however, I'd claim that it's a violation of IRLJ 6.6 (d) to "hide" the certifications. It certainly defeats the "spirit" of the rule.

Personally, I think you should go with the improper "tracking history" (or total lack thereof) first. Then the "hearsay" argument. If both of those fail, you may as well try some of the others -- you just never know what a judge will latch onto.

Good luck,
Barry

[gaste]

Barry,

How would I go about structuring my lack of a proper tracking history argument?

I was also curious about a few points:

The officer does not state WHICH antenna was being used. Maybe the wrong one was in use, and the vehicle being measured was approaching from the other direction. We don't know, and can't ever know, because officer Cox does not say which antenna he used.

In his statement Officer Cox states "the defendant's vehicle was the only moving vehicle in the field". Does this completely refute any concern with which antenna was being used? It couldn't have picked up any other reading.

But, when we combine the above arguments with the fact that the officer did NOT state which side of the road he was on, which way he was facing, whether you were approaching or receding, OR that the RADAR reading and the audio tone were CONSISTENT with his visual observations. Thus, he does NOT demonstrate a "proper tracking history".

He states that my car appeared to be in excess of the posted speed limit of 65 MPH and the radar emitted a high-pitched audio tone. Does he have to explicitly state that these are consistent with each other?

[gaste]

Bump.

Any other thoughts regarding my concerns? I have court tomorrow. All the help is greatly appreciated!

[blewis]

I don't have a Python operator's manual, but here's an extract from a Kustom Trooper manual:

Acquiring and displaying valid target (and patrol) speeds requires obtaining a proper tracking history, as described below:

1. Visually observe target vehicle and estimate its speed. Recheck antenna aim and MOVSTA selection. Observe other vehicles which may be in the radar beam and which are potential targets (or may block the radar's "view" of the selected target), especially those which are larger, closer, or much faster than the selected target. Be alert to terrain or roadside features, which can cause interference, incorrect readings, or display blanking. (Such features include power lines, radio/TV transmitters, bridges, guardrails, and other large reflectors, etc.)

2. Listen to the Doppler audio. The pitch of the tone should correspond to the visual estimate made above. The tone should be clear and strong; scratchy, “buzzy”, or garbled tones could indicate interference of some sort.

3. Check the radar TARGET display. The reading should closely match the visual estimate and the pitch of the audio tone.

4. If you are operating in Moving Mode, check your speedometer against the PATROL display. The readings should correspond. Discrepancies indicate the radar is reading the PATROL speed incorrectly, and thus displaying an incorrect TARGET speed.

You MAY have been the only moving vehicle in the "front" RADAR field, for example, but Speedy's "antenna" argument is "what if the 'rear' antenna was selected?" It's possible that the reading was actually taken on a vehicle BEHIND the officer. Since he didn't designate which antenna was selected, which direction he was facing, from which direction you were approaching (or receding), or whether you were, indeed, approaching or receding, it's not possible to know if it was even POINTED toward you.

Good luck,

Barry

[gaste]

Case dismissed! Thanks for advice!

A little tidbit for anyone running into a case similar to mine in the future:

The judge presiding over the case was Judge Robinson. I presented the "insufficient tracking history" argument first to no avail but he bought into the "hearsay" argument fairly easily. He seemed fairly receptive to most of the arguments that others were presenting on the day's docket. He even dismissed a case based solely on a girl's testimony.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Wooo hooo!! Congrats and thanks for letting everyone know the results!