My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WA
I was cited for going 83 in a 70 in Kittitas County by WSP via RADAR. Here is my discovery: https://imgur.com/a/EsU91r2
My court date is April 1st. I'm going to argue (in order):
Pretrial motions:
1)
"Your honor, the officer's sworn statement does not testify to personal knowledge of the SMD's calibration. It uses the language: "The calibration of the R-2577 BEE III was checked internally...", thus showing the the officer only testifies to his knowledge of the device being calibrated, not to him personally calibrating the device. Present to Rule ER 602, I move to suppress evidence referring to or relying upon the SMD on the basis that the officer's personal testimony to its calibration is hearsay."
If this works then:
"Your honor, on the basis that no evidence to my speed is present, I would like to file a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of evidence".
If that doesn't work,
2)
"Your honor, the officer does not state that the SMD has been certified to be operational and in good working order by an expert in SMD's. Furthermore, the officer does not state that he has been trained or provided instructions on the use of the BEE III SMD, or the calibration thereof. I move to suppress evidence referring to or relying upon the SMD on the basis that the officer's foundation."
I will check the court's SMD certifications and see where they get their WSP certifications. If they don't have up to date certifications I will move to suppress the statement on IRLJ 6.6 they move to dismiss for lack of evidence instead.
What do you think? Does anyone else have any ideas? Also my judge is Paul R Sanders.
I was cited for going 83 in a 70 in Kittitas County by WSP via RADAR. Here is my discovery: https://imgur.com/a/EsU91r2
My court date is April 1st. I'm going to argue (in order):
Pretrial motions:
1)
"Your honor, the officer's sworn statement does not testify to personal knowledge of the SMD's calibration. It uses the language: "The calibration of the R-2577 BEE III was checked internally...", thus showing the the officer only testifies to his knowledge of the device being calibrated, not to him personally calibrating the device. Present to Rule ER 602, I move to suppress evidence referring to or relying upon the SMD on the basis that the officer's personal testimony to its calibration is hearsay."
If this works then:
"Your honor, on the basis that no evidence to my speed is present, I would like to file a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of evidence".
If that doesn't work,
2)
"Your honor, the officer does not state that the SMD has been certified to be operational and in good working order by an expert in SMD's. Furthermore, the officer does not state that he has been trained or provided instructions on the use of the BEE III SMD, or the calibration thereof. I move to suppress evidence referring to or relying upon the SMD on the basis that the officer's foundation."
I will check the court's SMD certifications and see where they get their WSP certifications. If they don't have up to date certifications I will move to suppress the statement on IRLJ 6.6 they move to dismiss for lack of evidence instead.
What do you think? Does anyone else have any ideas? Also my judge is Paul R Sanders.
Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket Court Gameplan
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire