Hello,
By Washington Court Rules IRLJ 6.6:
"
IRLJ 6.6
Speed Measuring Device: Design and Contruction Certification
---
(a) In General. This rule applies only to contested hearings in
traffic infraction
cases.
(b) Speed Measuring Device Certificate; Form. In the absence of proof
of a request to
produce an electronic or laser speed measuring device (SMD) expert
served on the
prosecuting authority and filed with the clerk of the court at least
30 days prior to
trial or such lesser time as the court deems proper, a certificate in
substantially the
following form is admissible in lieu of an expert witness in any court
proceeding in
which the design and construction of an electronic or laser speed
measuring device (SMD)
is an issue:
[form follows below see link for full rules]
"
In the state of Washington, it seems that ALL electronic or laser
speed measuring device
(SMDs) have judicial notice and are acceptable as evidence in
"contested hearings in
traffic infraction cases" as long as an expert witness is present at
the trial to
testify OR a form ("Certification Concerning Design and Construction
of Electronic Speed
Measuring Devices Or LASER Speed Measuring Devices") is filled out by
an expert and
presented at the time of the trial. There is nothing in the municipal
nor state court
rules which suggest otherwise or negate judicial notice. Even though
your question
doesn't ask it, as for which models are currently in use in the state
of Washington, I
would guess that information is not made publically known, but you
should be able to
receive it by writing a letter to the pertinent station or by calling.
What is interesting is that in my home state, New Jersey, one of the
models you mention,
the LTI20/20 has specifically had its judicial notice revoked. This
passage is taken
from a book, "Pay No Fine: A User Guide to Successfully Fighting
Traffic Tickets"
(linked below):
"
On June 13, 1996, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Reginald Stanton
stated that he was
not convinced of the accuracy of the LTI 20.20 Marksman. As such, he
ruled that any
readings taken with the LTI 20.20 would not be accepted as evidence in
any pending or
future speeding ticket cases.
"
If you're looking specifically to beat a LIDAR speeding in the state
of Washington, I'll
refer you to another site which deals specifically in trying to beat
tickets. The Tipmra
site has a page dedicated to Washington state, and here's what they
say:
"
First: As Judicial notice that the speed measuring device is approved
and works as
advertised the document specified in rule 6.6 may be introduced
without a prosecution
attorney.
"
But they continue:
"Care must be taken to separate two distinct issues. One, Judicial
notice and two, the
calibration of the unit used to determine your speed. What this form
does is to
eliminate the requirement of having experts on laser or radar testify
in every trial
that the laser or radar gun works as advertised. I have no objection
to that. That is
all that the form stipulates. It does not specify that the specific
gun used on the day
of your arrest was functioning properly.
"
The page continues to go on about their Tipmra ticket beating system
(which I wouldn't
spend a cent on). They however confirm that infact, all they need to
do for any specific
model is to get an expert to sign a sheet testifying that as
manufactured it will detect
speeds correctly. The next step you would want to do is pressure the
prosecution into
proving that the SMD was calibrated and tested on the day it was used.
However this
strays from your original question, I just wanted to throw this last
bit in there for
scope.
Search Strategy:
laser on Washington state court rules search page:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/search/home.cfm
"washington state" "judicial notice" radar on google:
://www.google.com/search?q=%22washington+state%22+%22judicial+notice%22+radar
Additional Links:
Washington state court rules IRLJ 6.6:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/display.cfm?group=clj&set=irlj&ruleid=cljirlj6.6
"Pay No Fine" (full text -- see chapter 8):
http://www.blackmarket-press.com/info/books/pay_no_fine.pdf
Tipmra's advice for beating tickets in Washington state:
http://www.tipmra.com/washington_state.htm
Thank you for the opportunity to answer your question, if you require
more information,
please clarify the question, or if you find this answer satisfactory,
please feel free
to rate it. Thank you!
skermit-ga |
Clarification of Answer by
skermit-ga
on
20 Jan 2003 01:53 PST
ARRGH, all of my formatting got jumbled. Please read the answer
correctly formatted below:
Hello,
By Washington Court Rules IRLJ 6.6:
"
IRLJ 6.6
Speed Measuring Device: Design and Contruction Certification
---
(a) In General. This rule applies only to contested hearings in
traffic infraction cases.
(b) Speed Measuring Device Certificate; Form. In the absence of proof
of a request to produce an electronic or laser speed measuring device
(SMD) expert served on the prosecuting authority and filed with the
clerk of the court at least 30 days prior to trial or such lesser time
as the court deems proper, a certificate in substantially the
following form is admissible in lieu of an expert witness in any court
proceeding in which the design and construction of an electronic or
laser speed measuring device (SMD) is an issue:
[form follows below see link for full rules]
"
In the state of Washington, it seems that ALL electronic or laser
speed measuring device (SMDs) have judicial notice and are acceptable
as evidence in "contested hearings in traffic infraction cases" as
long as an expert witness is present at the trial to testify OR a form
("Certification Concerning Design and Construction of Electronic Speed
Measuring Devices Or LASER Speed Measuring Devices") is filled out by
an expert and presented at the time of the trial. There is nothing in
the municipal nor state court rules which suggest otherwise or negate
judicial notice. Even though your question doesn't ask it, as for
which models are currently in use in the state of Washington, I would
guess that information is not made publically known, but you should be
able to receive it by writing a letter to the pertinent station or by
calling.
What is interesting is that in my home state, New Jersey, one of the
models you mention, the LTI20/20 has specifically had its judicial
notice revoked. This passage is taken from a book, "Pay No Fine: A
User Guide to Successfully Fighting Traffic Tickets" (linked below):
"
On June 13, 1996, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Reginald Stanton
stated that he was not convinced of the accuracy of the LTI 20.20
Marksman. As such, he ruled that any readings taken with the LTI 20.20
would not be accepted as evidence in any pending or future speeding
ticket cases.
"
If you're looking specifically to beat a LIDAR speeding in the state
of Washington, I'll refer you to another site which deals specifically
in trying to beat tickets. The Tipmra site has a page dedicated to
Washington state, and here's what they say:
"
First: As Judicial notice that the speed measuring device is approved
and works as advertised the document specified in rule 6.6 may be
introduced without a prosecution attorney.
"
But they continue:
"Care must be taken to separate two distinct issues. One, Judicial
notice and two, the calibration of the unit used to determine your
speed. What this form does is to eliminate the requirement of having
experts on laser or radar testify in every trial that the laser or
radar gun works as advertised. I have no objection to that. That is
all that the form stipulates. It does not specify that the specific
gun used on the day of your arrest was functioning properly.
"
The page continues to go on about their Tipmra ticket beating system
(which I wouldn't spend a cent on). They however confirm that infact,
all they need to do for any specific model is to get an expert to sign
a sheet testifying that as manufactured it will detect speeds
correctly. The next step you would want to do is pressure the
prosecution into proving that the SMD was calibrated and tested on the
day it was used. However this strays from your original question, I
just wanted to throw this last bit in there for scope.
Search Strategy:
laser on Washington state court rules search page:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/search/home.cfm
"washington state" "judicial notice" radar on google:
://www.google.com/search?q=%22washington+state%22+%22judicial+notice%22+radar
Additional Links:
Washington state court rules IRLJ 6.6:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/display.cfm?group=clj&set=irlj&ruleid=cljirlj6.6
"Pay No Fine" (full text -- see chapter 8):
http://www.blackmarket-press.com/info/books/pay_no_fine.pdf
Tipmra's advice for beating tickets in Washington state:
http://www.tipmra.com/washington_state.htm
Thank you for the opportunity to answer your question, if you require
more information, please clarify the question, or if you find this
answer satisfactory, please feel free to rate it. Thank you!
skermit-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
alan3838-ga
on
20 Jan 2003 18:27 PST
Addition "clarification":
For an addition $5 tip:
For what length of time is the LIDAR Calibration Certification
Certificate ("Washington State Patrol Speed Measuring Device (LIDAR)
Certification") valid for? Different wording would be, how often must
the LIDAR be Certified.
As an example a certificate dated 6/20/01, Notarized 6/2/01 (not a
typo, that is Notary date on cert.), and the SMD was utilized on
12/10/02
--------
For an additional $5 tip:
Does in State of WA. a clearly incorrect Notary Public date invalidate
the (Washington State Patrol Speed measuring Device (LIDAR)
Certification), as would be asserted by the defense during the
procedural portion (beginning) of a traffic infraction? Or best
defense position on same?
---------
For an additional $10 tip:
Assume that witnesses states that the Washington State Officer, in the
performance of his duties, states that "This conversation is being
recorded," and it is found NOT to be the case. What would be
consequences of such a fact be for the officer and/or the Traffic
infraction proceedings?
Further it is stated by witnesses (biased, suspect and suspect's wife)
that a statement made in the "Officer's written testimony" was without
question not made by the suspect (i.e. "yes I guess I was speeding").
What would suggestions be to apply such a condition to a Move for
Dismissal? Examples would be assertions of the defense that:
The officer's statement "This conversation is being recorded,"
constitutes a perjures statement .
That the testimony in the Officer's written testimony ("yes I guess I
was speeding") constitutes a perjures statement .
That the testimony in the Officer's written testimony ("yes I guess I
was speeding") shall be non-admissable.
I can't recall the RCW but there is one I have.
Thanks, you are doing great.
I first went to the Pay No Fine site, which got a lot of infor, and
left me with ? I could not answer. Ironicaly my wife is a parlegal, I
an 50 yr Elec eng. annoyed that we got a 93 in a 60 while doing 58
with the cruse control on.
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
alan3838-ga
on
20 Jan 2003 19:54 PST
The false Police report is RCW 42.20.040
|
Clarification of Answer by
skermit-ga
on
20 Jan 2003 22:53 PST
Please give me a day to mull over these questions. I'm busy all day
tomorrow, but will take a look when I get back home.
skermit-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
alan3838-ga
on
22 Jan 2003 00:21 PST
Thanks for the text re-format, I thought it was some kind of legalese.
I just looked over the "Officer's written statement" I got. Funny,
the ticket was on 2 November 2002, but his statement was made on 11
December 2002, 5 weeks later. From the many hours of work I have
done, I think I found he used a Kustom Pro Laser II or I, but
definitely NOT the Pro Laser III as in his statement and as
hand-written on the LIDAR certificate (the one over 17 months old). I
am still trying to get a good photo of the control side of the Pro
Laser I to confirm. Never show High tech equipment to an aerospace
Engr with a degree in quantum Phys. The whole thing seems like a very
poor situation.
Several of my friends are cops and my wife works with the King County
Prosecutor and I have a significant security clearance. As such we
live a very straight life and this really annoys & concerns us. He
kept threatening to hand cuff me into his car (a threat to get me to
“confess).” Which I agreed was acceptable, I just kept calmly
re-stating I was not speeding and that this was an area we were in
disagreement on. For a copy with 31 yrs he is a very bad person.
Darn, I have 600 digital photos to work on for a book, work 15 hrs 6
day a week, go to Germany for Airbus constantly and am building my
house. I have no time for this. Sorry to ramble….
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
alan3838-ga
on
25 Jan 2003 11:10 PST
Hi This will be closed Sunday 12P.M. West Coast time with a rating of 3.
|
Clarification of Answer by
skermit-ga
on
25 Jan 2003 21:48 PST
I'm sorry I could not answer the clarifications which were separate
questions from the original. I ask that you rate my answer fairly,
based upon the original question and whether or not I answered it
sufficiently. Thank you.
skermit-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
alan3838-ga
on
26 Jan 2003 00:42 PST
How would you rate your answer? This is my first use of this.
My only problem was the expectation of response, not the absence of
response with part 2+
|
,
0 Comments
)