As of now, numero uno is a death wish. Don't use it.
Numero dose is good. Use the fact that he didn't state the time before. Courts in washington require that it be within a reasonable amount of time. I don't see that reasonable amount of time being met because there is no time listed.
Number 3: I haven't seen a problem with no location and radar, (it's normally lidar because lidar manuals say that the object being measured has to be within a certain distance) but you could use this argument as a back up.
Number 4: I do recall that the officer has to have "specific knowledge" that it was tested. I'm doing this really quickly and don't have time to do a lot of research, so maybe Barry or Cole may have something to say about that. I think the case to look up is Seattle v. Peterson. However I do not know exactly as I am not home on my computer with all of my case law.
Number 5: I wouldn't pursue that too much. As WA law does not require the prosecution to present that evidence. The court can simply assume all of that.
Number 6: "It may have been another car" arguments don't work too well. Stick with breaking the chain of evidence rather than proving your innocence.
7: Post up the docs you received and we'll all have a look. Maybe we'll find something else. Is it a written ticket or an e-ticket?
Brendan

