Just because I pointed out your unproductive responses doesn't make me smarmy. It more likely makes you thin skinned. But that's irrelevant and needlessly personal as the point here is not for you and I to win an argument. The point here is to help an OP who is seeking a defense. In other words, the point here is to NOT be a type 3.Your reply, by the way is the worst sort of smarmy sanctimonious pap. You fit in beautifully among the us type 3's.
I think you type 3s are missing a big picture here. It is not an accident that the state has a very high burden to meet when prosecuting a case. In order to understand this, you must first answer the philosophical question: "is it better to let a hundred guilty men go free or to convict one innocent man?" I go with the former vice the latter. Fortunately, our constitution agrees. We make prosecution burdensome for the state and we do not lower that bar simply because it is a minor infraction. The reason is that once you start to lower the bar for the state's burdens, that's when you begin to convict innocent men. And convicting one innocent man is far more harmful to society and our faith in the judicial system than allowing a hundred guilty men go free.
Unfortunately, the bar has been lowered in traffic courts. I have personally witnessed courts literally and willfully ignoring the law and convicting innocent defendants simply because that bar has been lowered so far. So, where an OP coming here and decrying innocence may personally offend you... the idea of courts willfully convicting innocent defendants should offend you infinitely more.
Back to the OP's defense:
If you plan on moving forward with the "wrong time" defense, be mindful not to go into court and point out that the officer made a mistake so you should be let off the hook. Your argument is simply that you are not guilty of the infraction in which you are charged. You may very well be guilty of exceeding the speed limit at 1am, but that's not what you were charged with. Limit your conversation to that which you were charged. If the officer begins to talk about 1am, you should object to his testimony as being irrelevant. Things that happened at 1am have nothing to do with a speeding charge in the early afternoon.
This defense will take discipline not to get sucked into an argument with the cop or the judge. If either of them start talking about 1am, you simply do not comment. Rather you inform the court that you are here to defend yourself against the only charge that is properly before the court... and that is speeding in the early afternoon.
Personally, I think that it is clear cut and you should prevail based on the law and the rules of court. However, as I have stated before, the bar has been lowered in traffic court. You should be prepared for the judge to tell you that he simply does not care and finds you guilty anyway. The problem with this is that when a judge ignores the law and ignores procedure, it becomes impossible for anyone to mount a defense against anything. For at that time, you are not defending yourself against what you were charged with... you are defending yourself against what the judge thinks you SHOULD HAVE been charged with.