Yes, it appears that the process is designed to defeat you, even if you prevail and recover court costs, you still lose.
Yes, it appears certain prosecutor type judges have adopted this flawed reasoning to allow them to violate Infraction Rules of Limited Jurisdiction 2.1(b)(4) as if it doesn't even exist. I would imagine that the appeals court may not consider the violation of Infraction Court Rules as being a valid enough factor to overturn.The missing subsection argument has been successful in some courts, although I’m inclined to think not as much in recent years. The current SECTOR electronic ticketing system probably doesn’t even allow a subsection to be entered (every speeding ticket I’ve seen lately lacks a subsection). For a recent example of this argument not succeeding, you might want to read this previous post from a thread last December.
The officer did not once state that he tested the device before and after shift. The judge acted like an aggressive prosecutor and made it obvious that no matter what, the state was not going to lose. The court was surprised at my attack and the judge told me that no one ever submits motions in his court. It seemed as if the judge had never held a real hearing in his court room, he seemed somewhat unfamiliar with he process. He seemed more familiar with the poor citizens grovelling at his feet with 0 defense and his "infraction committed" rubber stamp.However the poster in the above linked thread did win based on the officer not stating personal knowledge of device testing. That’s where I think you might have shot yourself in the foot by subpoenaing the officer, because your strongest defense probably had to do with him not checking the moving radar patrol speed against his speedometer.
The officer is a newbie rookie, he made no statement on the NOI and brought in an affidavit that I was not aware of and never got to see. Even the affidavit made no mention of testing the SMD , speedometer or SMD speed against the speedometer, The patrol speed was not known. I motioned to dismiss on that because it was missing just about all elements. It happened fast when the judge deliberately extracted the missing elements, too fast for me to object to the judge acting as an agent of the state by attempting to re-open the states case to pull such a nasty move.Based on what you described about how the judged behaved on that issue, I’m guessing the officer’s sworn written statement lacked that required evidence. In the officer’s absence, his written statement is the only evidence available and if insufficient (not containing all required elements) the judge would have been forced to dismiss. Instead the judge was able to coax that necessary element from the officer, and also I’m pretty sure judges in general are more reluctant to dismiss whenever the officer is present.
Yes, I asked for a good amount of discovery, I even served the sheriffs dept and got just about nothing. The officer brought only a 4 line affidavit into court, nothing else. And i did ask for any affidavits, and never received any. My scope was very wide and I missed this mark, I should have attacked this, I know.Also based on your description, it would appear that you never served a discovery request on the prosecutor, and probably based your defense only on the notice of infraction and cross examination of the officer. Your entire defense should have been based on the written statement.
I did a lot more than that, I pushed the hearing to over an hour and a half long. I grilled and tested the officer on Visual Speed Estimation from a moving vehicle for the purpose of excluding his so called observation... When I concluded the test, the officer was off by over 38mph, my speed would have been -.8 mph, driving backwards? The prosecutor/judge did not care or simply could not comprehend.Anyway you did object to the officer’s apparent failure to conduct a patrol speed/speedometer check, and I’m inclined to believe denial of that objection could quite possibly be your best chance for winning an appeal. A more correct initial motion should have been to exclude or suppress the evidence of speed, followed by a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence--but I’m not sure that technicality would hurt you much since what’s most important is that you objected. Probably in an appeal argument you would want to try to illustrate how the judge was leading the witness prior to denying your objection.
This is "Boss Hog" territory, where good ole boy attorneys figured out a way to win every time, they are elected as Judges... Many attorneys will not come near this place, because they know how things work out here... It's tough.

