My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA
I have read numerous posts on here that have been incredibly helpful. I filed my discovery request using blewis advice. Here are my docs and defense.
Officer Statement
SMD Cert.
SMD Cert. pg 2
NOI
NOI Pg2
My hearing is on Thursday (and I know it's not ideal timing wise) but thanks so much to any help. My question is:
- My defense was going to be based on the officer stating “The methods used showed the LIDAR unit was working properly before and after the stop with the defendant.” This has not mention of when these tests were complete, could be days or months before or after. Is this enough to win the case pursuant to Rule ER 901 (b)(9)? Should I cite Mociulski as well, insofar as before the machine is deemed reliable the witness must show the machines passed the requisite checks.
- Another point the officer mentioned the fixed distance test but doesn't specify any details, namely the length, again per rule ER 901 (b) (9) is this valid?
- The Certification mentions the Range Accuracy Test and the Speed Accuracy Test but does not mention the delta distance test as the LTI Truspeed manufacturer specifies. Furthermore, delta distance is a compound test of both speed and distance simultaneously and therefore would not be concluded in the isolated tests previously mentioned.
- The officer ticketed me on a sunny morning (I was driving westbound - sun behind me/towards officer) on a steep hill (estimated 9.3 degrees) at over 600 feet. These three events combine to significantly increase the officers probability of sweep error.
Anything else I might have missed? Appreciate any help!

