Quote Quoting BrendanjKeegan
View Post
I don't know if this will be heard in front of Anderson or Smith. I assume Smith, but could be wrong. Either way, I've seen Smith accept this argument, so I don't see why Anderson wouldn't.

https://fortress.wa.gov/wsp/smdsearc...tionPrint/2800

According to that document, there is testimony that the device was found to be working properly on 1/11/2012, but the tests were performed on 3/19/2012. How could the certifying official know that it would pass? Move to dismiss as the testing was not completed after the fact.
The documents signed by the engineers on 1/11/2012 simply state their qualifications and their professional opinion that, when calibrated, the devices are accurate. The actual calibration for the device doesn't occur until the date specified on page 5. If you can get a judge to go for that argument, then by all means go for it, but any judge that actually reads the certification document will see that there's no merit to it.