Results 1 to 4 of 4

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Defending Against a Bee III Radar Speeding Ticket in Washington

    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

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

    Default Re: Defending Against a Bee III Radar Speeding Ticket in Washington

    Perhaps somebody with more patience than me will go through all of your myriad scans, but as nobody else has yet chimed in, I'll start things off.

    You can try to argue to the court that the officer's statements about testing aren't sufficient to establish that he performed the required tests. Perhaps you'll be lucky and the court will find that the officer did not include enough granular specificity in his statement.

    "The unit was checked" and "I checked the unit" are not inconsistent statements, and together they indicate that the officer checked the unit.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Defending Against a Bee III Radar Speeding Ticket in Washington

    Thanks Mr Knowitall.

    My court date is tomorrow morning so I have formulated some motions, with only the first couple having much more than a hail marry shot of winning. I haven’t figured out how to form a motion for this potentially promising piece of information:

    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)

    I was wondering if you could offer any guidance as to how to formulate the motion. As for my other motions, here are my most promising ones I think (from best to worst):

    (1) — Your honor, I move to dismiss this citation on the grounds that it violates IRLJ 2.1(b)(4). This IRLJ cites that, among other things the “statutory citation” must be cited. On my notice of infraction, RCW ______ was cited, which at first seems compliant. However, upon further analysis this passage of RCW has 3 subsections, which involve everything from driving to fast for the conditions to driving at a reduced speed when certain special conditions/obstacles are present. Because of this oversight, this complaint is not in compliance with IRLJ 2.1(b)(4).
    Investigating further, I found that this type of mater had previous case law pertaining to it in the case of State vs. Leach. In this case, the Supreme Court found that Mr. Leach was cited with an RCW reference, but it was not described which of the two offense described in that statute was charged. The court found his case constitutionally defective for not stating the elements of the offense as required by State v. Holt and further upheld in the opinion of this very case. The same constitutional defect is present in my citation and I would respectfully ask the court to dismiss it.

    (2) — Your honor, I move to suppress the speed read evidence due to lack of foundation. In the BEE III operators manual, it states that there is an additional test, In addition to the standard tests, that needs to be performed in order to verify that FASTEST mode is working properly. This is important because FASTEST mode is the mode in which the officer recorded my speed. The officer does not state whether he performed this additional test, let alone whether the RADAR passed. Due to this, I cannot accurately determine if this RADAR unit was in full working order and being used in compliance with the manufacturers approved methods at the time of my stop.

    (3) — Your honor, I move to suppress the speed read evidence due to lack of foundation. Unlike some other RADAR units, the BEE III has a separate mode for tests involving tuning forks, as stated in the manual. The officer does not mention in his statement whether the RADAR was in the TEST mode when he conducted the tuning fork tests. Without this key piece of knowledge, I can’t verify that the RADAR was indeed in proper working order, consistent with the manufacturers approved methods, at the time of my stop.

    (4) — Your honor, I move to suppress the speed read evidence due to lack of foundation. The officer states the SMD was in stationary mode, but fails to establish whether the patrol vehicle was stationary or in motion. He also checks the box talking about his speedometer, which further muddies the waters. Because of these points, it is impossible to factually establish from the officers statement whether the device was used in a manner consistent with the manufacturers approved methods.

    (5) —Your honor, I move to suppress the speed read evidence due to lack of foundation. The officer does not properly qualify himself as an expert by saying what training he has received in operating RADAR SMD’s. Furthermore he does not articulate that he has training specific to the Bee III, just that he was trained on RADAR SMD’s generally.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    886

    Default Re: Defending Against a Bee III Radar Speeding Ticket in Washington

    You’ve certainly done a good job of researching the manual for relevant details, and I’m not sure if I can add much in the way of suggestions or guestimate your chances. It does appear the officer is making some conflicting statements which could be grounds to suppress or exclude the speed reading. I sort of like what you are getting at in #4 concerning the speedometer, which is completely irrelevant for stationary mode. Checking that box tends to suggest that he was moving. Also, as you mentioned the “locked” statement on top conflicts with the check box on the bottom.

    Anyway regardless of outcome I hope you will report back what happens in court. I’ve not been to Skagit County Court and would be interested in your experience. Good luck.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Speeding Tickets: Defending Against a Radar Speeding Ticket
    By pu_driver in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 04:14 PM
  2. Speeding Tickets: Defending a Speeding Ticket with a Bee III Radar
    By Michael_p in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-04-2016, 07:53 AM
  3. Speeding Tickets: Defending a Speeding Ticket by Claiming Radar Interference, Calbration Issues
    By LibertyChamp in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-22-2015, 01:50 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Defending a Paced (with Radar Gun) Speeding Ticket
    By cpark in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 11:20 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Defending Against a Speeding Ticket in Washington Sate
    By atsaruk in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-25-2010, 08:40 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources