Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Question Disputing the Testing and Certification of a SMD for a Speeding Ticket

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

    Snohomish County District Court, Everett Division

    I have received discovery material for a speeding ticket, and I see several issues and wanted to get your expert feedback. Thanks in advance for your help!

    1. As you can see from the second page of officer's report (https://imageshack.com/i/pnzu7qynj, the first couple letters of the page have been omitted when it was sent (that is, it is not a problem with my scanning of the page). Some crucial information are missing as a result: "I placed the red dot sighting reticle *n the defendant's vechicle and obtained a reading of: *2------- MPH at a distance of: *84 ft. in a *0 MPH."
    If I go back to the first page of the officer's report (https://imageshack.com/i/pmAs3yEJj), I can GUESS that "*2" would be "72" and "*0 MPH" would be "60 MPH". However, I cannot even guess what the "*84 ft" would be ("184 ft", "284 ft", etc., the first digit could be anything). Could this lack of complete information be used to argue to dismiss officer's statement?
    And then move for dismissal of the ticked due to lack of evidence?

    2. Exhibit A of SMD certification (https://imageshack.com/i/pn08DkDCj) shows that tag number L1488 which the officer states he used was last certified on 02/10/2015. At the end of the first page of SMD certification (https://imageshack.com/i/pnoFFq2Pj), states that "The Washington State Patrol maintains a testing and certification program that requires each SMD to be tested and certified for accuracy at least once every two years". As the ticket was issued on 02/10/2017 (exactly two years - but would the previous certification have expired on 02/09/2017?), could it be argued that the certification was no longer valid and thus SMD evidence excluded?

    3. Exhibit A of SMD certification does not specify how the SMD was tested (that is, which standard it was tested against). Usually, in a full SMD certification, it is customary to state what the standard used was (e.g., certifying radar unit's information - serial number, when it itself was last certified, etc.). The second page of SMD certification (https://imageshack.com/i/pogPaEBEj) states that "An operational road test is done by comparing the lidar to a certified radar SMD", but it does not say that it is mandatory that this information be disclosed?

    4. Officer's statement states that "I tested the LIDAR unit both internally and externally at the beginning and end of my shift. The LIDAR unit passed each of the checks and was working properly at the time of this violation." The SMD certification states that "it will give accurate measurements of the speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained operator". Is "testing" equivalent to "calibrating"? Asking since I am not sure whether it would be.

    That's all I could come up with - anything else I am missing? Would any of these be valid argument in Everett traffic courts?
    Thank you - I could really use some help!

    Link to discovery material: https://imageshack.com/a/ZiEl/1

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Disputing the Testing and Certification of a SMD for a Speeding Ticket

    Regarding your item # 1, I would agree with you that the prosecution has essentially not complied with discovery and not proven their case--by providing an incomplete copy of the officer’s sworn statement lacking crucial foundational details. Even if they were to argue that the speed reading and limit are on the ticket, the distance at which your speed was measured is also required.

    Regarding item # 2, according to CR 6(a), RCW 1.12.040, and general standards for computation of time, the expiration date on the provided certificate would be the next weekday following the day you were ticketed.

    Quote Quoting Washington Court Rule 6(a)
    Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any superior court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, a Sunday nor a legal holiday…
    Regarding item # 3, I don’t know enough to comment without checking further.

    Regarding item #4, “testing” and “calibrating” are not equivalent. Calibration by Washington State Patrol is done every 2 years, whereas testing is done each day the device is used. However I do think the officer is supposed to specify each type of daily test that was done. Recently I heard a local attorney successfully move for suppression because the officer did not delineate the delta distance check for the laser device.

    So to summarize, I would move to suppress or exclude as follows:

    1. Motion to suppress the speed reading for lack of foundation. The officer’s statement does not give a valid speed reading, speed limit or distance from which the reading was obtained.
    2. Motion to suppress the speed reading for lack of foundation. The officer’s statement does not give any detail as to which tests were performed, and does not delineate the delta distance check.

    You should announce motions immediately when called, before the officer’s report is read into the record and before you are sworn in for testimony. If one is granted, move for dismissal due to lack of evidence.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Disputing the Testing and Certification of a SMD for a Speeding Ticket

    Thank you so much for your reply, searcher99! The hearing is scheduled for Monday - I will let the forum know how it goes. Meanwhile, if anyone else has additional feedback, I would love to hear it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: Disputing the Testing and Certification of a SMD for a Speeding Ticket

    Case dismissed! The judge agreed that the prosecution has not fully complied with the discovery and dismissed the case. Thank you so much for your help searcher99!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Disputing the Testing and Certification of a SMD for a Speeding Ticket

    You’re welcome and thanks for the report. Probably also the judge’s copy was bad and unreadable so that makes for an easy dismissal. Congratulations!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: Disputing a Paced Speeding Ticket
    By Didn't Do it! in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-22-2015, 05:43 PM
  2. Hearings and Trials: Must a SMD Certification Expert Appear at a Speeding Ticket Hearing
    By Bellevuedriver in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-25-2013, 06:02 PM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket with 2 Year Old SMD Certification
    By gogodawgs in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 06:49 PM
  4. Evidence: Evidence and Radar Certification for a Washington Speeding Ticket
    By ben2e in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-31-2011, 12:12 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: California Speeding Ticket with LIDAR Calibration and Certification Issues
    By ca_wings in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-15-2007, 12:15 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources