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.