My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA
Snohomish County District Court, Everett Division
I have received discovery material for a speeding ticket, and I see several issues and wanted to get your expert feedback. Thanks in advance for your help!
1. As you can see from the second page of officer's report (http://ift.tt/2nNbgRZ, the first couple letters of the page have been omitted when it was sent (that is, it is not a problem with my scanning of the page). Some crucial information are missing as a result: "I placed the red dot sighting reticle *n the defendant's vechicle and obtained a reading of: *2------- MPH at a distance of: *84 ft. in a *0 MPH."
If I go back to the first page of the officer's report (http://ift.tt/2nQKDNs), I can GUESS that "*2" would be "72" and "*0 MPH" would be "60 MPH". However, I cannot even guess what the "*84 ft" would be ("184 ft", "284 ft", etc., the first digit could be anything). Could this lack of complete information be used to argue to dismiss officer's statement?
And then move for dismissal of the ticked due to lack of evidence?
2. Exhibit A of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nNtS4p) shows that tag number L1488 which the officer states he used was last certified on 02/10/2015. At the end of the first page of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nQI1zf), states that "The Washington State Patrol maintains a testing and certification program that requires each SMD to be tested and certified for accuracy at least once every two years". As the ticket was issued on 02/10/2017 (exactly two years - but would the previous certification have expired on 02/09/2017?), could it be argued that the certification was no longer valid and thus SMD evidence excluded?
3. Exhibit A of SMD certification does not specify how the SMD was tested (that is, which standard it was tested against). Usually, in a full SMD certification, it is customary to state what the standard used was (e.g., certifying radar unit's information - serial number, when it itself was last certified, etc.). The second page of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nNdKQn) states that "An operational road test is done by comparing the lidar to a certified radar SMD", but it does not say that it is mandatory that this information be disclosed?
4. Officer's statement states that "I tested the LIDAR unit both internally and externally at the beginning and end of my shift. The LIDAR unit passed each of the checks and was working properly at the time of this violation." The SMD certification states that "it will give accurate measurements of the speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained operator". Is "testing" equivalent to "calibrating"? Asking since I am not sure whether it would be.
That's all I could come up with - anything else I am missing? Would any of these be valid argument in Everett traffic courts?
Thank you - I could really use some help!
Link to discovery material: http://ift.tt/2nQOtGx
Snohomish County District Court, Everett Division
I have received discovery material for a speeding ticket, and I see several issues and wanted to get your expert feedback. Thanks in advance for your help!
1. As you can see from the second page of officer's report (http://ift.tt/2nNbgRZ, the first couple letters of the page have been omitted when it was sent (that is, it is not a problem with my scanning of the page). Some crucial information are missing as a result: "I placed the red dot sighting reticle *n the defendant's vechicle and obtained a reading of: *2------- MPH at a distance of: *84 ft. in a *0 MPH."
If I go back to the first page of the officer's report (http://ift.tt/2nQKDNs), I can GUESS that "*2" would be "72" and "*0 MPH" would be "60 MPH". However, I cannot even guess what the "*84 ft" would be ("184 ft", "284 ft", etc., the first digit could be anything). Could this lack of complete information be used to argue to dismiss officer's statement?
And then move for dismissal of the ticked due to lack of evidence?
2. Exhibit A of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nNtS4p) shows that tag number L1488 which the officer states he used was last certified on 02/10/2015. At the end of the first page of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nQI1zf), states that "The Washington State Patrol maintains a testing and certification program that requires each SMD to be tested and certified for accuracy at least once every two years". As the ticket was issued on 02/10/2017 (exactly two years - but would the previous certification have expired on 02/09/2017?), could it be argued that the certification was no longer valid and thus SMD evidence excluded?
3. Exhibit A of SMD certification does not specify how the SMD was tested (that is, which standard it was tested against). Usually, in a full SMD certification, it is customary to state what the standard used was (e.g., certifying radar unit's information - serial number, when it itself was last certified, etc.). The second page of SMD certification (http://ift.tt/2nNdKQn) states that "An operational road test is done by comparing the lidar to a certified radar SMD", but it does not say that it is mandatory that this information be disclosed?
4. Officer's statement states that "I tested the LIDAR unit both internally and externally at the beginning and end of my shift. The LIDAR unit passed each of the checks and was working properly at the time of this violation." The SMD certification states that "it will give accurate measurements of the speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained operator". Is "testing" equivalent to "calibrating"? Asking since I am not sure whether it would be.
That's all I could come up with - anything else I am missing? Would any of these be valid argument in Everett traffic courts?
Thank you - I could really use some help!
Link to discovery material: http://ift.tt/2nQOtGx
Speeding Tickets: Discovery Material: Do I Have a Valid Argument
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire