Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default With Discovery for Speeding Ticket in Washington State

    Hello guys,

    I'm helping out a relative with his speeding ticket and need some help with the discovery. I need some ideas with preliminary motions. Any help is appreciated.

    Michael


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: With Discovery for Speeding Ticket in Washington State

    This officer is either the laziest I've had to deal with, or the cleverest. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and call him clever. He obviously believes that "less is more". So little information is presented. I'm guessing this officer believes that the court will ASSUME the details that are missing -- and there are a LOT of them -- favor the officer. Personally, if I were a judge, I'd find this insulting.

    Let's start:
    1) The officer gives no indication of his location.
    2) The officer gives no indication of whether he was moving or stationary.
    3) The officer gives no indication of whether the RADAR was in "moving" or "stationary" mode.
    4) The officer gives no indication of which antenna was in use.
    5) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, was the target vehicle approaching from the rear or the front?
    6) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, did the speed shown in the "patrol" window agree with the vehicle's speedometer?
    7) Why didn't the officer note the serial numbers of the tuning forks? Were BOTH antennas tested in both stationary and moving modes?
    8) The officer received training. When? Yesterday? There is no experience listed.
    9) The device was checked. By whom? Did the officer test it himself or did someone else? There may be an ER 602 issue. I don't see any evidence "sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."

    As I said, I think this officer just assumes that by NOT putting in this information, there is no way to actually question it. If you can't question the evidence, the defendant HAS to found guilty, right? He thinks the court will simply assume that the missing information isn't really necessary. After all, the guy MUST be guilty, right? Why muddy the waters with facts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: With Discovery for Speeding Ticket in Washington State

    Blewis, thank you very much for your input.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    409

    Default Re: With Discovery for Speeding Ticket in Washington State

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    This officer is either the laziest I've had to deal with, or the cleverest. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and call him clever. He obviously believes that "less is more". So little information is presented. I'm guessing this officer believes that the court will ASSUME the details that are missing -- and there are a LOT of them -- favor the officer. Personally, if I were a judge, I'd find this insulting.

    Let's start:
    1) The officer gives no indication of his location.
    2) The officer gives no indication of whether he was moving or stationary.
    3) The officer gives no indication of whether the RADAR was in "moving" or "stationary" mode.
    4) The officer gives no indication of which antenna was in use.
    5) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, was the target vehicle approaching from the rear or the front?
    6) If the RADAR was in "moving" mode, did the speed shown in the "patrol" window agree with the vehicle's speedometer?
    7) Why didn't the officer note the serial numbers of the tuning forks? Were BOTH antennas tested in both stationary and moving modes?
    8) The officer received training. When? Yesterday? There is no experience listed.
    9) The device was checked. By whom? Did the officer test it himself or did someone else? There may be an ER 602 issue. I don't see any evidence "sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter."

    As I said, I think this officer just assumes that by NOT putting in this information, there is no way to actually question it. If you can't question the evidence, the defendant HAS to found guilty, right? He thinks the court will simply assume that the missing information isn't really necessary. After all, the guy MUST be guilty, right? Why muddy the waters with facts.
    Happens with LIDAR, except people get upset if you question it then.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Discovery: Speeding Ticket Discovery in Washington State
    By russoturristo in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2012, 08:47 AM
  2. Discovery: Discovery Materials for Speeding Ticket in Washington State
    By xzibit3452 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 10:14 PM
  3. Discovery: Speeding Ticket Discovery in Washington State
    By TVCM in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-20-2012, 10:38 AM
  4. Discovery: Discovery for a Washington State Speeding Ticket
    By blaholdings in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 01:22 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Washington State Speeding Ticket Notice of Discovery
    By yoshibond in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-01-2010, 09:31 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources