If you can get a certified copy of that: then yes, it will help. That is, unless, the prosecutor objects due to lack of foundation. But I wouldn't worry about the prosecutor.

The way that I would do it is as follows: "Your honor, the officer has testified that the speed limit is 45 MPH at this particular point on the roadway. I have certified evidence from the Washington State DOT here today that points to the contrary: Defense Exhibit A. If I may approach, your honor."

Show the document to the prosecutor and show him the page, then take it to the judge and show him the page. Walk back and say:

"Your honor, this document is evidence that the speed limit is 55 MPH at mile post 58 and remains 55 until after mile post 59. I move to dismiss on the fact that the officers testimony is incorrect and the wrong speed was cited."

The prosecutor may object to dismissal and try to amend the notice. I would come back and say, "Your honor, even if the notice was amended, by the expert testimony before this court, the speed reading was within the percentage of error for the speed measuring device and the ticket should be dismissed on that ground alone."

If you're still in no luck, I would then use speedy's stuff.

If still no luck, argue indefinite time as to when the SMD was tested. How long before and after? Hours? Days? Months? Years?

If still no luck, argue that the officer has not testified to the accuracy of the course he used for the differential distance test. If someone else was the one that measured the course, then they must testify. He cannot assume that the course is 125 and 175 feet and have it offered into evidence unless he measured it himself. Even if the course's distance is off by 2 feet, which is possible at that distance, the speed reading of the device could be drastically different.

If still no luck, you can go big or go home with an argument about how he doesn't state whether or not he shot through a window or how he was parked or exactly where he was. If it was a corner, the device could be affected by sweep effect. If he shot through a window, the laser beam could have been refracted.

The last two would of course be hail marys- but I am sick of Lidar being deemed "so perfectly accurate." In my opinion, Lidar devices have more room for failure and error than radar devices do... and I have not seen ONE officer use the device per the manufacturers instructions: mounted on a tripod. I have personally used the Prolaser III by hand and have clocked a parked car at 35 MPH. Okay... done ranting.