My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: kansas
Hey guys, I was turning into a school zone, came up a hill, and on my way down I seen a stationary patrol car and was pulled over for going 34 in a 25 (school zone) after I passed him. I did not pass any school zone sign. Here's a pic of a map I plan to use in court
I made a right on Maurer (the street with blue dots) from W 82nd. On 81st and Maurer (where the blue dots end at the top) is where the southbound 25 mph school zone when flashing sign is posted. The citation says I was clocked at the crest of the hill on 83rd and Maurer. The cop was positioned at the end of the blue dots at the bottom at 8351 Maurer. I will also note that there is a 30mph sign at 83rd and Maurer and is the first sign you see after coming over the hill southbound.
I already made a discovery request for the Radar Manual (denied), the officer's notes (denied, said I can get any information directly from the officer at trial), the radar's certification along with tuning forks (posted below), and the officer's training certifications (posted below)
Radar Certification:
First red flag, the certification was OVER 2 years from the date of the citation. Do I have a case here? Also the device is a Stalker DSR 2X. Is this Lidar or Radar? I was not able to find the manual for this on the internet. You need a pw to view it from the manufactures website. Any advice here?
Same with the tuning fork certification, over 2 years from the date of citation :
http://i.imgur.com/6lDsyLo.jpg
Officer Training Qualifications:
Anything of note here?
As noted in the subject, my trial date was actually today, but the officer did not show due to sickness. Prosecution asked for continuance which I objected to and motioned to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The Judge ruled that since I asked for and was granted a continuance a month before, she thought it was fair to grant the prosecution a continuance as well. Instead of leaving, I stayed and watch another trial in which the defendant had been cited for speeding in a school zone. This is what I noted about how the prosecution and officer will work together to prosecute these kind of cases:
- The officer will testify to using internal calibration and tuning forks before and after their shift to verify that the radar is in working order. Can I use this against the prosecution if the officer in my case testifies to the same thing?
- The officer will testify to checking that the school zone lights were indeed flashing but did not state that they did so immediately before and after the citation. Do I have a case if I argue that since the officer did not check if the lights were flashing immediately before and after my citation, and could not have possibly seen the south bound school zone lights on 81st and Maurer from his location on the other side of the hill? The officer also testifies to the actual time the signs are "supposed" to be flashing.
- The officer will testify to have gotten a visual estimate before he clocked me. Since he could not have possibly seen me from over the hill from his location, it appears that he will have seen me at 83rd and Maurer. If it takes him 3 seconds to get a visual estimate. Do I have a chance to argue that at 34 MPH I would be about very very close to passing the 30mph speed limit sign on 83rd and Maurer when he actually clocked me with radar?
- The officer does not testify to the exact location of his vehicle or the defendants, road conditions, or traffic conditions. Any way I can use this to my advantage?
I also have pictures of the speed limit signs, video of the route I took, pictures and video of the officers vantage point, etc.
Sorry this is so long. Wanted to include all relevant info I had. Think I have any chance? Thanks for reading.
- - - Updated - - -
I forgot to add that the Judge made a big deal about how she did not feel like Radar was a good way to determine speed. She told the defendant that she hated the fact the the city did not use Lidar like other surrounding cities. She found the defendant guilty (he didn't have a good case anyway) but said she would lower the fine due to the radar and confusion due to the position of the signs in that case. I plan to use this to my advantage and attack the possible shortcomings that radars have.





