Speeding on the Freeway

[mondo]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA

HELP! I've procrastinated and have court tomorrow morning without a defense. to be honest, I wasn't even going that much over the speed limit, but I know that argument won't hold up in court. Any advice/suggestions?

[prusakolep]

I would go to the court early and check out their radar/lidar certification records.

The online records show that the unit was certified on 1/26/2012 and again on 3/27/2013. If it happens that the court only keeps the latest certification, then you could argue that there is no certification for the date of your ticket, and the evidence should be suppressed. If the court has the earlier certification, check what date it is signed on. The certification online was signed on 1/22/2012 for a certification date on 1/26/2012. If the certification in court has these dates out of order, too, I would argue that the certification is invalid because it was signed before the actual certification was done.

If neither of these work - I would go for a deferral if available.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

When your case is called, read the following out loud to the judge verbatim. Do not deviate.

"Your Honor I move to strike the sentence in the officer's statement about the calibration testing as hearsay under evidence rule ER802 as the officer does not establish that he was the one who performed the LIDAR calibration tests. He states only that the device 'was checked' but not by whom it was checked."

Whether or not the judge rules in your favor on that motion, continue and read the following motion as it is where you are asking for the dismissal:

"Your Honor, I move to suppress the speed readings under IRLJ 6.6(c) and move for dismissal with prejudice for lack of evidence. The officer does give any results of the LIDAR calibration checks. It is therefore impossible to factually or legally establish whether the LIDAR passed or failed any of the calibration checks. The device cannot be authenticated as is required by evidence rule ER902. The speed reading should be found insufficient and suppressed per IRLJ 6.6(c) and this case should be dismissed."

Please come back and post the results of your case.

[BrendanjKeegan]

If I recall correctly, both of these motions will have merit in Pierce County. I may be wrong however... but I side with Speedy on this one. The law is on your side in this case.

[Speedy Gonzalez]

Doh, I just noticed I messed up and missed a word. I stated, "The speed reading should be found insufficient and suppressed per IRLJ 6.6(c) and this case should be dismissed." This should instead read, "The speed reading evidence should be found insufficient and suppressed per IRLJ 6.6(c) and this case should be dismissed."

[blewis]

Actually, IRLJ 6.6 relates to the calibration and certification of the SMD device -- NOT the daily calibration "checks". The "requirement" for daily calibration checks is from case law, mostly Spokane v Knight.

Barry

[BrendanjKeegan]

All of this may be a moot point though. It looks like OP already had court. We don't know if the motion did the trick or not.

[spikespencer]

I was looking through old posts and noticed:

In your particular cases, if there were no indications that the officers tested their radar/lidar equipment both at the beginning AND end of the shifts, or that those devices had been properly serviced and calibrated, those devices would not have met the standard in Knight.

When it comes down to the day it will be what the Judge decides I know but was the case from http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57902 that different?

~Spike~

[spikespencer]

So what was the result? I hope it went well?

~Spike~