My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WASHINGTON
Hi all, I just got my discovery for a speeding ticket I got in SKAGIT county and was wondering if you have any insight! (Specifically any Washington ticket gurus out there like @searcher99 & @Speedy Gonzalez)
I have uploaded the discovery items (redacted personal information) as well as the BEE III manual and the certification for the DB Innovations VOCAR unit referenced: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbY9kQw
I have many potential ideas (sorry for my long ramblings), but none of them seem very strong, unfortunately. I have tried to reference past threads and other resources when thinking of these:
(1) In the BEE III manual it states that a separate tuning fork test is needed to make sure the unit is working properly in FAST mode, which he used to pull me over; but he makes a general statement about testing it using both tuning forks, not saying if he did this special test.
(2) In the BEE III manual it states that the radar needs to be in tuning fork mode in order for the testing to work, but he makes a general statement about testing it, not specifying if he tested it in the correct mode.
(3) In the BEE III manual and DB innovations (people that supply equipment to test the units) it recommends testing the radar units every year and this one was over a year (in a WSP 2-year cycle). Is there an argument here?
(4) In the BEE III manual it states that “While the speeds indicated in the fastest mode are as accurate as normal targets, visual identification of the offending vehicle is more difficult. For this reason, the BEE III only displays fastest targets on request when the mode is enabled and does not allow them to be locked. It is intended to be used as a way to gather additional information about a specific situation.” However in his written statement he says my speed was locked, which would be impossible. Do you think this is a viable defense? (I was thinking this could be used to discredit his assertion that he knew how to operate the device, but couldn’t find relevant case law/evidence rules for it)
(5) it seems that he committed “lack of personal knowledge” (ER 602, I think) by saying that “the unit was checked” but then corrected himself by saying “I checked” does the second statement nullify the first?
(6) He checked the box about his patrol speedometer, which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with my ticket (since my ticket was a RADAR not a PACE ticket). I could argue that I can’t prove the calibration of his speedometer because there is no certification, but would that help my case at all?
(7) He says he is qualified and has received training but doesn’t say what that training is. Does that matter?
(8) He states the certification is good through 08/31/2018, when actually using the 2-year cycle the WSP seems to use — it would be good through 10/31/2018. Could this be used to prove he isn’t knowledgeable about this RADAR unit?
(9) On the three pages of SMD certifications I can’t find anywhere where Anthony Hillock (the guy that oversees the SMD testing) says he was PERSONALLY there when the unit was tested and/or PERSONALLY oversaw the results. Wouldn’t that make that whole document hearsay (ER 802, I think) or lack of personal knowledge (ER 602). Or possibly in violation of IRLJ 6.6
(10) He states there was heavy traffic and doesn’t check the box that says my vehicle was the only vehicle in the radar beam. Is that of any use?
(11) He doesn’t estimate a speed I was going before pulling me over and then saying the radar validated it. I can’t find any case law in Washington State, but in Kentucky (Honeycutt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 408 SW2d 421) it was found that needed to happen. I read absent any case law in your own state, this may carry some weight with the judge. Does this sound like a good argument to you?
(12) Finally, when I was pulled over there was a 2nd officer present who never spoke to me; but he is not mentioned in the report. Does this matter?
*I have an email out to SECTOR Support about at what time my ticket was entered into the system. If it was entered before the officers shift was over, I believe he would be testifying to after-shift tests that hadn’t happened yet*
Thanks in advance for all your help, I really appreciate it! and I'm sorry again about the length.
Best Regards,
Baseballfan28

