Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Default Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Request

    My question involves traffic court in the State of: WA
    The prosecutor and court have both responded to my Request for Discovery and Public Records Request via e-mail. In both requests I explicitly requested the calibration and certification log for the SMD in question, however, neither response contained this information. Both the court and the prosecutor only produced the citation and the officer's report. Is there any grounds for calling into question the validity of the SMD's measurement? The officer's report unfortunately crosses all the t's and dots all the i's.

    "I observed the defendant approaching my location in excess of the 60 MPH posted speed limit. I obtained a high audio signal as the defendant entered the RADAR. I obtained a reading of 71MPH. The defendant was the only vehicle in the RADAR beam at the time I obtained the above reading. The defendant's speed was checked by a BEE III speed measuring device, SMD # R-2675, that had been checked by a state patrol technician and was certified to be in proper working order. On this date, SMD # R-2675 had been checked internally and externally by the use of tuning forks #285297 and #285148. I checked the calibration of this unit before and after the stop, and it was in proper working order both times. I have received training on the proper operation of SMD's from the state patrol academy, and I was operating the SMD in accordance with this training when the above reading was taken."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Are the records online?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Were you pulled over by WSP or a local agency? I don't see a certification for that unit after 2013 but it's possible it was surplussed out to a local agency. If that's the case, they or the court should have it.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Thanks for the link.

    - - - Updated - - -

    free9man, it was WSP. Using the link provided by Mr. Knowitall I was able to pull up the certification records and see that it is currently certified. I'm starting to think I might just need to contact the court and change my plea, unless anyone has any other ideas.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,006

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Quote Quoting tristanwalter
    View Post

    free9man, it was WSP. Using the link provided by Mr. Knowitall I was able to pull up the certification records and see that it is currently certified. I'm starting to think I might just need to contact the court and change my plea, unless anyone has any other ideas.
    Derp. I read down up instead of up down, expecting the most recent one to be at the bottom. Mea culpa.

    If you scan the discovery you got, redact any identifying information and post it here using an image hosting service, the WA gurus may be able to find you a technical out.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    There is no requirement in IRLJ 3.1(b) for the prosecution to send you copies of calibration and certification logs. However, pursuant to IRLJ 6.6(d) that information should be filed and available for viewing at the court, and if not you can move to suppress radar evidence.

    It would be better if you would link actual images of your discovery as free9man suggested. However if what you typed above is the entire officer’s statement then it is missing important details. Take a look at this previous post by Speedy Gonzalez and also the one above it. All 5 points Speedy made in that post appear to apply to your situation as well.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Sorry for the late response. I hope you all are still paying attention. Unfortunately there are some check box areas that indicate the radar was in opposite moving mode and my vehicle was approaching, and that the front radar was used.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    I still think that the sworn statement is missing important elements and also contains hearsay. For those reasons you can announce that you have motions immediately when called by the judge, and move to suppress radar evidence due to lack of foundation. If any of your motions are granted, you can move for dismissal due to lack of evidence. However, as was pointed out recently in a different thread, there are some courts in Washington State where it’s hard to win, and I have no idea about Grant County.

    Here are a few points to argue:

    1) In opposite moving mode, the officer should have testified to checking the radar’s “patrol” speed against the patrol vehicle speedometer. I don’t know if it’s possible for you to get access to a Bee III manual, but previous threads have pointed out that the manual requires this check to be made. Failure to do so would mean that he didn’t operate the device according to manufacturer instructions and radar evidence should be suppressed.

    2) The officer mixes first person testimony with hearsay statements that only imply but do not state that he had personal knowledge required by ER 602. I’ll quote him here with first person bolded and hearsay marked in red:

    "I observed the defendant approaching my location in excess of the 60 MPH posted speed limit. I obtained a high audio signal as the defendant entered the RADAR. I obtained a reading of 71MPH. The defendant was the only vehicle in the RADAR beam at the time I obtained the above reading. The defendant's speed was checked by a BEE III speed measuring device, SMD # R-2675, that had been checked by a state patrol technician and was certified to be in proper working order. On this date, SMD # R-2675 had been checked internally and externally by the use of tuning forks #285297 and #285148. I checked the calibration of this unit before and after the stop, and it was in proper working order both times. I have received training on the proper operation of SMD's from the state patrol academy, and I was operating the SMD in accordance with this training when the above reading was taken."

    The officer’s firsthand statement that he “checked the calibration” is far too general and should not be construed to imply that he personally performed more specific tests mentioned just prior to that statement. Also he is not an expert who is capable of checking “calibration”. Although it’s probably safe to assume that he used the specific Bee III mentioned, as a whole his affidavit is confusing.

    3) He does not state his or your direction of travel.

    4) He testified to being trained “on the proper operation of SMD’s” but not on the Bee III specifically.

    5) Also as I mentioned earlier, if the current calibration certificate is not actually filed at the court you can move for dismissal pursuant to IRLJ 6.6(d). You can arrive a little early on your court date to check on that.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish, WA
    Posts
    1,588

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    I don't see much happening on any of those. About the only argument I see is that he did not state that the RADAR's patrol speed reading and and the patrol vehicle's speedometer matched.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Prosecutor Did not Provide Calibration and Certification Logs After Discovery Req

    Thanks for your input Speedy. It’s true I might have dug too deep into that statement but some of the wording really bugged me. Do you have any information about the OP’s chances in Grant County court?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Discovery: Prosecutor Failed to Provide Discovery on Time
    By GerritVK in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-22-2014, 01:44 AM
  2. Discovery: Discovery Request from the Prosecutor and Defense
    By sslaw in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-07-2011, 08:30 PM
  3. Discovery: When and How to Request Discovery From a Prosecutor, Court Clerk or Police Officer
    By ineedplez in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-07-2011, 12:29 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Discovery Request to Prosecutor Not Received
    By Bothell64 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 11:04 AM
  5. Discovery: Is a Defendant Required to Provide Discovery to the Prosecutor
    By jslabana in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 06:35 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources