My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: WASHINGTON, Kittitas County
Hi everyone,
I've been reading Barry's guides and numerous threads in hopes of challenging a traffic infraction I received.
I received a speeding ticket on August 8 by a WSP officer. The officer said I was going 85 in a 70 mph zone, and wrote the ticket down to 70mph because I asked him to let me turn my ignition on again to see if I could pull up my cruise control setting I was using at the time of the stop - but the cruise control module's memory was cleared when I shut off the engine upon being stopped, so I could not prove my set speed to the officer.
I received my notice of hearing on 5th Nov. (scheduled for Nov. 20th) and sent my request for discovery materials the same day by CRRR. I received them today, the 15th (sent by the court on the 13th).
Here is a link to the discovery materials, as well as the SMD certification
From what it looks like all the court responses are within the dates specified IRLJ 2.6 so I don't think motioning for a speedy trial or failure to provide discovery in a given timeframe will help, but please correct me if I'm wrong. My infraction is not stamped with the date of filing - I'll have to call tomorrow to determine if the infraction was filed with the court within 5 working days.
In my review of the discovery materials, I've found the following:
-The officer's sworn affidavit does not mention his position in relation to my vehicle or the road, nor does it mention the distance the speed measuring device supposedly clocked me at. The officer was using the SMD on what I remember to be a two-lane section of the highway, with multiple vehicles in the range of the SMD's beam, which I understand to reach out to 4000ft. Is it possible for the beam to be wide enough to clock other vehicles moving faster than mine, at some arbitrary distance (perhaps very far behind me)?
-I may have the Mociulski argument based on the verbiage in the SMD certification - could someone please check this for me and verify? It says the SMD was tested under the direction of an authorized SMD expert, but later says the expert (Hillock) certifies its function per the manufacturer's standards. I believe this is sufficient to demonstrate the Mociulski argument.
-The NOI does not list the subsection of RCW 46.61.400 that was violated by statute code, but does specifically name "75 MPH in 70 MPH zone" - does this meet the standard as required by State v. Leach?
-Road conditions are not mentioned in his report, nor is the flow of traffic. This infraction was issued on a day where there was very low visibility (wildfires pouring smoke in from British Columbia) - the manual states that conditions affect the range and accuracy of the radar, but I can't determine to what extent.
-The officer notes the SMD emitted a tone that was "steady in pitch", however the MPH Bee III manual indicates the tone should be increasing when operating in the mode the officer specifies in his affidavit (fastest):
Doppler audio: The BEE III features a speaker on the front panel for Doppl er audio. The BEE III's audio is derived directly from the received Doppler signal (not synthesized) and is useful as an aid in target identification. The loudness is proportional to the strength of the received signal and increases as the target vehicle approaches. The pitch of the audio signal increases with higher closing speeds. When the fastest target mode is enabled, the Doppler audio corresponds to the fastest target and not to the strongest target.
I'm sure the experts on the board will be able to find other discrepancies and provide some insight to those I've named. Would love the input of those familiar with WA speeding cases. All things considered, I will likely be hiring a lawyer to fight this case for me, but want to exercise due diligence and get as many eyes on the materials as I can so that I can discuss with the attorney what I see when I give him these documents. Thank you!
Hi everyone,
I've been reading Barry's guides and numerous threads in hopes of challenging a traffic infraction I received.
I received a speeding ticket on August 8 by a WSP officer. The officer said I was going 85 in a 70 mph zone, and wrote the ticket down to 70mph because I asked him to let me turn my ignition on again to see if I could pull up my cruise control setting I was using at the time of the stop - but the cruise control module's memory was cleared when I shut off the engine upon being stopped, so I could not prove my set speed to the officer.
I received my notice of hearing on 5th Nov. (scheduled for Nov. 20th) and sent my request for discovery materials the same day by CRRR. I received them today, the 15th (sent by the court on the 13th).
Here is a link to the discovery materials, as well as the SMD certification
From what it looks like all the court responses are within the dates specified IRLJ 2.6 so I don't think motioning for a speedy trial or failure to provide discovery in a given timeframe will help, but please correct me if I'm wrong. My infraction is not stamped with the date of filing - I'll have to call tomorrow to determine if the infraction was filed with the court within 5 working days.
In my review of the discovery materials, I've found the following:
-The officer's sworn affidavit does not mention his position in relation to my vehicle or the road, nor does it mention the distance the speed measuring device supposedly clocked me at. The officer was using the SMD on what I remember to be a two-lane section of the highway, with multiple vehicles in the range of the SMD's beam, which I understand to reach out to 4000ft. Is it possible for the beam to be wide enough to clock other vehicles moving faster than mine, at some arbitrary distance (perhaps very far behind me)?
-I may have the Mociulski argument based on the verbiage in the SMD certification - could someone please check this for me and verify? It says the SMD was tested under the direction of an authorized SMD expert, but later says the expert (Hillock) certifies its function per the manufacturer's standards. I believe this is sufficient to demonstrate the Mociulski argument.
-The NOI does not list the subsection of RCW 46.61.400 that was violated by statute code, but does specifically name "75 MPH in 70 MPH zone" - does this meet the standard as required by State v. Leach?
-Road conditions are not mentioned in his report, nor is the flow of traffic. This infraction was issued on a day where there was very low visibility (wildfires pouring smoke in from British Columbia) - the manual states that conditions affect the range and accuracy of the radar, but I can't determine to what extent.
-The officer notes the SMD emitted a tone that was "steady in pitch", however the MPH Bee III manual indicates the tone should be increasing when operating in the mode the officer specifies in his affidavit (fastest):
Quote:
Doppler audio: The BEE III features a speaker on the front panel for Doppl er audio. The BEE III's audio is derived directly from the received Doppler signal (not synthesized) and is useful as an aid in target identification. The loudness is proportional to the strength of the received signal and increases as the target vehicle approaches. The pitch of the audio signal increases with higher closing speeds. When the fastest target mode is enabled, the Doppler audio corresponds to the fastest target and not to the strongest target.
Speeding Tickets: Ticketed for Speeding While Passing Other Vehicle
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire