My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA
During my last court appearance, I filed for discovery 15 days before the required 14 day minimum (IRLJ 3.1). I requested the officer's sworn statement (which had no signature on it), a list of witnesses the state planned to call, and the certification/calibration log of the SMD. If I am reading IRLJ 3.2 correctly, the state is not required to provide the certification/calibration log in the discovery. In this particular case, they did not.
What they did do is provide me with was this response to my discovery demand:
Pursuant to IRLJ 6.6(d), a copy of the speed measuring device affidavit may be obtained by contacting the above mentioned court. Please make arrangements with the court to view and copy the affidavit. The SMD unit number is listed on the attached trooper's Sworn statement. Washington State Patrol hs two expert witnesses for radar and LIDAR (and it listed their names and phone numbers).
If I got my discovery request the day before trial, it would not be enough time to track down the speed measuring device affidavit. I'm confused by this... Is the speed measuring device certification not available through a discovery request? Would I need to get it at the court and not through the Washington State Patrol or the Prosecution? Could the case be dismissed because it was not provided in the original discovery request? Could it be dismissed because the state did not offer me a way to get the SMD affidavit in a timely manner? Furthermore, nowhere on the officer's sworn statement did I find the SMD unit number, instead it referenced two tuning forks' serial numbers (whatever that is):
I tested the unit at the beginning and the end of my shift. I tested it by means of internal and external tests: Both front and rear antennae, in the stationary, moving opposite and moving same direction modes. I used the assigned tuning forks serial #456827 and #456802 by striking the forks on a non-metallic surface. The unit passed each of these tests and was in proper working order.
The case was dismissed by other means, but I'm curious about this for future knowledge. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
During my last court appearance, I filed for discovery 15 days before the required 14 day minimum (IRLJ 3.1). I requested the officer's sworn statement (which had no signature on it), a list of witnesses the state planned to call, and the certification/calibration log of the SMD. If I am reading IRLJ 3.2 correctly, the state is not required to provide the certification/calibration log in the discovery. In this particular case, they did not.
What they did do is provide me with was this response to my discovery demand:
Pursuant to IRLJ 6.6(d), a copy of the speed measuring device affidavit may be obtained by contacting the above mentioned court. Please make arrangements with the court to view and copy the affidavit. The SMD unit number is listed on the attached trooper's Sworn statement. Washington State Patrol hs two expert witnesses for radar and LIDAR (and it listed their names and phone numbers).
If I got my discovery request the day before trial, it would not be enough time to track down the speed measuring device affidavit. I'm confused by this... Is the speed measuring device certification not available through a discovery request? Would I need to get it at the court and not through the Washington State Patrol or the Prosecution? Could the case be dismissed because it was not provided in the original discovery request? Could it be dismissed because the state did not offer me a way to get the SMD affidavit in a timely manner? Furthermore, nowhere on the officer's sworn statement did I find the SMD unit number, instead it referenced two tuning forks' serial numbers (whatever that is):
I tested the unit at the beginning and the end of my shift. I tested it by means of internal and external tests: Both front and rear antennae, in the stationary, moving opposite and moving same direction modes. I used the assigned tuning forks serial #456827 and #456802 by striking the forks on a non-metallic surface. The unit passed each of these tests and was in proper working order.
The case was dismissed by other means, but I'm curious about this for future knowledge. Any thoughts? Thanks in advance!
Discovery: Discovery Incomplete. Sort of
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire