If you received a traffic ticket, you have to make the decision about whether it is worth your time and money to fight the ticket or if it would be better to simply pay the fine. You should carefully consider this decision if you are concerned about your driving record or your insurance rates. Most of the cost of a ticket comes later – in those increased rates or loss of opportunities because of a poor driving record. Furthermore, certain convictions in the right combination can lead to the suspension of your driver’s license. Of course, you can always attempt to have your case dismissed or evidence thrown out on the basis that you cannot get a fair trial when the state's witness (the camera operator) stands to profit from your conviction. These tactics are theories and suggestions only, it will be YOUR responsibility to research the legitimacy and practicality of these approaches as they apply to your situation. Not all photo operations and state laws and processes are the same, and presentation of your defense can make all of the difference. When you're all done making your case, make sure you have a powerful summary. Remind the judge about what they did NOT prove (such as your identify) and remind the judge how flimsy their evidence is, that machines break and malfunction all of the time, and that their motive is profit. Again, the following theories are mostly posted as notes I have assembled for my personal observations - use at your own risk or consult an attorney! One thing I have learned - If the video has you in the intersection with the red light activated, regardless of the reasoning, logic or feelings you have about the infraction, YOU WILL NOT WIN. Now, here are some reasonings you can attempt to use in your defense.
A few definitions that have application here in arguing against Red Light Camera Tickets.
1) Preponderance of the Evidence -
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence.
2) Good Faith -
3) Anticipatory Obligation -
4) Entrapment
5)
Defending traffic tickets can be highly technical. Take, for example, the technical requirements for an Oregon photo radar ticket in a parked vehicle to be valid:
◾Was the photo radar vehicle or intersection properly marked?
◾If radar was in a vehicle, was it manned by a uniformed police officer?
◾Was it used within a city authorized by statute to use a photo radar system?
◾Was it used in a residential area or a school area or another area properly designated by the governing body of the city?
◾Was it used for more than 4 hours in any one location?
◾Was it a closed access roadway?
◾Was a photo radar sign properly posted?
◾Was the citation completed properly?
◾Was the citation served properly?
◾Was the radar unit properly maintained and calibrated?
◾If not, how will you prove it to the court?
One response when ticketed by a mounted camera at an intersection.
Woodburn Municipal Court )
270 Montgomery St. ) Complainant - § ORS 811.265
Woodburn Oregon 97071 . . ) Date of Complaint – May 08, 2016 6:59am
Daniel Merritt complaining officer ) Docket Number – RL002984
) ID Number - 6944358
)
V. )
)
Defendant )
address . . . . . )
address . . . . . )
phone number )
______________________________)
Motion to Dismiss
1st Defense
§ ORS 811.265 Driver failure to obey traffic control device
(1) A person commits the offense of driver failure to obey a traffic control device if the person drives a vehicle and the person does any of the following:
(a) Fails to obey the directions of any traffic control device.
(b) Fails to obey any specific traffic control device described in ORS 811.260 (Appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices) in the manner required by that section.
(2) A person is not subject to this section if the person is doing any of the following:
(a) Following the directions of a police officer.
(b) Driving an emergency vehicle or ambulance in accordance with the privileges granted those vehicles under ORS 820.300 (Exemptions from traffic laws).
(c) Properly executing a turn on a red light as authorized under ORS 811.360 (When vehicle turn permitted at stop light).
(d) Driving in a funeral procession led by a funeral lead vehicle or under the direction of the driver of a funeral escort vehicle.
(3) The offense described in this section, driver failure to obey a traffic control device, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §608; 1991 c.482 §13]
(4) Move to have the case dismissed on the grounds that no person from the State was in court to validate that the camera was functioning correctly on the day of your citation. "Your Honor, since no one has appeared to authenticate the photographic evidence, I object to such evidence for lack of foundation.”
DECLARATION of . . . . . . .
1. (a) & (b) I admit to driving through the intersection as shown.
2. (a) (b) & (d) have no application
(c) It is my position that I was properly executing a turn on a red light as authorized under ORS 811.360 (When vehicle turn permitted at stop light).
3. § ORS 811.360 says: (1) The driver of a vehicle, subject to this section, who is intending to turn at an intersection where there is a traffic control device showing a steady circular red signal, a steady red bicycle signal or a steady red arrow signal may do any of the following without violating ORS 811.260 (Appropriate driver responses to traffic control devices) and 811.265 (Driver failure to obey traffic control device):
1(a) Make a right turn into a two-way street.
(b) Make a right or left turn into a one-way street in the direction of traffic upon the one-way street.
2. A person commits the offense of improper turn at a stop light if the person does any of the following while making a turn described in this section:
(a) Fails to stop at the light as required.
(b) Fails to exercise care to avoid an accident.
(c) Disobeys the directions of a traffic control device or a police officer that prohibits the turn.
(d) Fails to yield the right of way to traffic lawfully within the intersection or approaching so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
3. A driver who is making a turn described in this section is also subject to the requirements under ORS 811.028 (Failure to stop and remain stopped for pedestrian) to stop for a pedestrian while making the turn.
4. The offense described in this section, improper turn at a stop light, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §628; 1997 c.507 §7; 2003 c.278 §7; 2005 c.746 §3; 2011 c.168 §2]
Under this section 1(a) I was making a right turn onto a 2 way street.
1(b). 2.(a) (b) (c) (d) 3. & 4. Have no application.
My Statement:
1. There were no pedestrians in the close vicinity.
2. The cars to the left or East of the intersection were stopped as the light in their direction (facing East to West) was red.
3. As I approached the intersection, I did not see until it was too late, that the light quickly turned amber then to red much faster than I had expected. It is my position that the light turned more quickly than other lights in the vicinity. But since I was making a right turn anyways, I felt that I had an authorized right to proceed in that as stated in § ORS 811.260¹ sub-section (4) Steady circular yellow signal. A driver facing a steady circular yellow signal light is thereby warned that the related right of way is being terminated and that a red or flashing red light will be shown immediately. A driver facing the light shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, shall stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, then before entering the intersection. If a driver cannot stop in safety, the driver may drive cautiously through the intersection. In other words, as I was approaching the intersection, my eyes were focused on the on-coming traffic. As I saw they were stopped and had the red light, I felt turning right at this intersection was permitted.
4. I did not know if there were any cars following me or not and not having much time to process that information I felt that had I stopped abruptly, I had a passenger that might have had an issue, had there been a vehicle behind me, I may have caused an accident or any number of concerns could have surfaced. Again, the theory of anticipation played a part in my decision making process. I felt that if others had anticipated my moves to proceed, and if they were following closely, my stopping abruptly when it appeared that I was going to continue through the intersection could have contributed to an accident wherein I might have been accused of being at fault. So either way I was to lose. Damned if I did, Damned if I didn't.
5. There were more unknowns than knowns at this point because of how quickly the light changed from amber to red.
6. I was not prepared to stop since the light had turned amber. But I had clearly slowed from 35mph to 10-15mph.
7. The red light had only been red for less than 1 second.
8. In order to stop at this point, I would have had to slam on my brakes, perhaps now into the intersection.
9. As you can clearly see in picture #1 that I had already begun making my turn as I entered the intersection.
10. Picture #2 shows that I had only gone the distance of 2-3 truck lengths in 2-3 seconds which is relatively slow, which in my opinion, under these circumstances is cautious.
11. As you can clearly see in picture #4 seeing the direction I was looking that I was already committed to the turn having cleared any concern with on-coming cars.
12. I completed the turn well in advance of any on-coming cars even entered into the intersection.
13. Your honor, I am not trying to argue my position simply on the grounds that I want to prove that the traffic monitoring is illegal, unethical or unjust. I am arguing that in my opinion, I was driving safely, courtesy of the situation and would drive in this manner regardless if there was monitoring or not. I always do my best to drive with obedience to the laws and with other drivers in mind.
Because of the foregoing, I argue that I was in compliance with this section as both worded and implied, as shown in section 14b above that without the said inducement, there would have been no violation. I pray to have this case dismissed with prejudice. But if the court feels that regardless of my intentions and good driving record you intend to issue me a fine and put driving points on my record, then it is my duty and obligation to continue with my remaining defenses.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 7, 2016______________
Defendant: name . . .
Motion to Dismiss
2nd Defense
DECLARATION of . . . . . .
CONTINUED
§ 810.436¹ - Citations based on photo red light
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if a city chooses to operate a camera that complies with this section and ORS 810.434 (Photo red light), a citation for violation of ORS 811.265 (Driver failure to obey traffic control device) may be issued on the basis of photographs from a camera taken without the presence of a police officer if the following conditions are met:
(a) Signs are posted, so far as is practicable, on all major routes entering the jurisdiction indicating that compliance with traffic control devices is enforced through cameras.
(b) For each traffic control device at which a camera is installed, signs indicating that a camera may be in operation at the device are posted before the device at a location near the device.
(c) If the traffic control device is a traffic light, the yellow light shows for at least the length of time recommended by the standard set by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
(c)1. Recommended Yellow Light Times
Three seconds should be the absolute minimum time for any intersection.
25 MPH -- 3.0 Seconds
30 MPH -- 3.5 Seconds
35 MPH -- 4.0 Seconds
40 MPH -- 4.5 Seconds
45 MPH -- 5.0 Seconds
50 MPH -- 5.5 Seconds
55 MPH -- 6.0 Seconds
(d) The citation is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle, or to the driver if identifiable, within 10 business days of the alleged violation.
(e) The registered owner is given 30 days from the date the citation is mailed to respond to the citation.
(f) A police officer who has reviewed the photograph signs the citation. The citation may be prepared on a digital medium, and the signature may be electronic in accordance with the provisions of ORS 84.001 (Short title) to 84.061 (Federal electronic signatures law partially superseded).
(2) If the person named as the registered owner of a vehicle in the current records of the Department of Transportation fails to respond to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section, a default judgment under ORS 153.102 (Entry) may be entered for failure to appear after notice has been given that the judgment will be entered.
(3) A rebuttable presumption exists that the registered owner of the vehicle was the driver of the vehicle when the citation was issued and delivered as provided in this section.
(4) A person issued a citation under subsection (1) of this section may respond to the citation by submitting a certificate of innocence or a certificate of non-liability under subsection (6) of this section or any other response allowed by law.
(5) A citation for violation of ORS 811.265 (Driver failure to obey traffic control device) issued on the basis of photographs from a camera installed as provided in this section and ORS 810.434 (Photo red light) may be delivered by mail or otherwise to the registered owner of the vehicle or to the driver if the driver is identifiable from the photograph.
(6)(a) A registered owner of a vehicle may respond by mail to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by submitting, within 30 days from the mailing of the citation, a certificate of innocence swearing or affirming that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and by providing a photocopy of the owners driver license. A jurisdiction that receives a certificate of innocence under this paragraph shall dismiss the citation without requiring a court appearance by the registered owner or any other information from the registered owner other than the swearing or affirmation and the photocopy. The citation may be reissued only once, only to the registered owner and only if the jurisdiction verifies that the registered owner appears to have been the driver at the time of the violation. A registered owner may not submit a certificate of innocence in response to a reissued citation.
(b) If a business or public agency responds to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by submitting, within 30 days from the mailing of the citation, a certificate of non-liability stating that at the time of the alleged violation the vehicle was in the custody and control of an employee or was in the custody and control of a renter or lessee under the terms of a motor vehicle rental agreement or lease, and if the business or public agency provides the driver license number, name and address of the employee, renter or lessee, the citation shall be dismissed with respect to the business or public agency. The citation may then be reissued and delivered by mail or otherwise to the employee, renter or lessee identified in the certificate of non-liability.
(7) The penalties for and all consequences of a violation of ORS 811.265 (Driver failure to obey traffic control device) initiated by the use of a camera installed as provided in this section and ORS 810.434 (Photo red light) are the same as for a violation initiated by any other means.
(8) A registered owner or an employee, renter or lessee against whom a judgment for failure to appear is entered may move the court to relieve the owner or the employee, renter or lessee from the judgment as provided in ORS 153.105 (Relief from default judgment) if the failure to appear was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect. [1999 c.851 §2; 2001 c.104 §305; 2001 c.474 §2; 2001 c.535 §30a; 2003 c.14 §493; 2003 c.339 §3; 2005 c.686 §2; 2007 c.640 §2]
13. Then there’s what’s termed anticipatory obligation.
(a) Under a primary obligation, I expect to see lights at an intersection.
(b) Under a secondary obligation, I expect to see lights working in a similar fashion as in other similar intersections and situations.
(c) Both are obligations and both are anticipatory.
(d) However when one of the obligations changes from 5 seconds to 4 seconds, it’s impossible for a person to know of this change unless he’s familiar with the intersection. We don’t live in the area and are unfamiliar with the light sequence. Therefore to us, this becomes a dangerous trap.
14. Entrapment – I ask that the Court consider whether or not the city monitored this intersection with the same monitoring rules & values as in other similar intersections, or were the rules & values of this intersection changed in order to induce a violation? Did the city do more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit this violation? There are 2 types of entrapment that come to mind.
a. One would be: in a case similar to "random virtue testing" wherein the agency or as here is the case, the city as enforced by the police would be limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offense.
b. The second, which is what I feel has application here is: when the city as enforced by the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offense, and instead actually induce the commission of the offense.
c. Entrapment defenses in the United States has evolved mainly through case law. Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.[6] ref: ^ http://law.jrank.org/pages/1091/Entrapment-two-approaches-entrapment.html
15. Good Faith – At what point is the Law of Good Faith involved wherein there lies deception?
a. In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in every contract in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract. A lawsuit (or a cause of action) based upon the breach of the covenant may arise when one party to the contract attempts to claim the benefit of a technical excuse for breaching the contract, or when he or she uses specific contractual terms in isolation in order to refuse to perform his or her contractual obligations, despite the general circumstances and understandings between the parties.
Notes of Decisions - Under Former Similar Statute
A party in violation of a motor vehicle statute is negligent as a matter of law unless he introduces evidence from which the trier of fact could find that he was acting as a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances. Barnum v. Williams, 264 Or 71, 504 P2d 122 (1972)
I argue that I was in compliance with this section as both worded and implied, as shown in section 14b above that without the said inducement, there would have been no violation. I further challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained through this deception. And/Or if this case is found against me and at some later date it is proven that entrapment which encompasses this situation is found to be illegal that my case be retroactively removed from my driving record with or without my filing an appeal for the same.
To argue on common ground:
1. First there has to be an admission that a Drivers License is a contract to drive.
2. Under that contract, there must be rules on both sides of the contract, that of the contractor and that of the contracted.
3. In order to find fault with me for this offence, there has to be removed the Law of (not the belief in, but the Law of) Good Faith of the government and
4. Second introduce entrapment into the equation.
Based on the foregoing, I pray to have this case dismissed with prejudice.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 7, 2016______________
Defendant: name . . .
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Monday, June 6, 2016
Moving Violation - Speeding by Radar
District Court of Cowlitz County )
312 SW 1st Ave. ) Complainant RCW 46.61.400
Kelso, Washington 98626-1724 ) Date of Complaint – June 04, 2016 12:04am
Daniel Merritt complaining officer )
V.
Defendant )
. . . . . . . . . )
. . . . . . . . . . . . )
)
. . . . . . . . . )
. . . . . . . . )
. . . . . )
________________________________________)
Motion to Dismiss
1st Defense
RCW 46.61.400 - Basic rule and maximum limits.
I state under the penalty of perjury that all statements in response to the below listed rules and subsections listed on my citation that all my response(s) are accurate and complete.
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(1.1) I was driving at a safe and reasonable speed consistent with all others in my immediate vicinity.
(1.2) I was well aware of any and all driving conditions surrounding me as there were no potential hazards then existing.
(1.3) I was driving at a safe distance from all surrounding person(s) and vehicles in my vicinity.
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.
(a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;
(b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;
(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.
(2.1) No special hazard either on roadway or in the surrounding atmosphere required driving at a lower speed in compliance with any of the sub-sections listed herein.
(2.1.(a) (b) or (c) The posted speed on I-5 in the area cited is 70m.p.h. which was not listed in these sub-sections.
The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, and 46.61.415 has no application in this hearing as violation of these rules were not cited.
(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
(3.1.) This section has no application as there were no crossing intersection, railway grade crossing, the going around of a curve or approaching a hill crest. Nor were there any special hazards in existence, no pedestrians to consider or other traffic, and my driving was consistent with existing weather or highway conditions.
I argue that I was in compliance with this section as both worded and implied, there being no violation, I pray to have this case dismissed with prejudice.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 6, 2016______________
Defendant:
Motion for Discovery
To Compel Production
IRLJ 3.1 (b). Demand the radar, tuning fork(s), a radar technician excluding the testing personnel that tunes the equipment, a certified radar expert in doppler function for the subject equipment used, the certification of the officer and documentation that the issuing officer did in fact personally certify, calibrate and test the subject equipment by written documentation.
2nd Defense
DECLARATION of _______________________
Argument:
1. I am new to the area I had just gotten off the plane at 10:30pm and at the point of alleged citation was traveling in a pack of approx. 6 cars all traveling at the same speed.
2. The weather was clear, no rain, clouds or obstructions of any kind.
3. The only obvious reason I feel I was singled out was because I was the last car in the pack and therefore became the convenient target
4. I felt as if I was driving at a safe speed since the pack fronting me appeared to be safe drivers. There was no lane changing, no erratic movements and the pack was driving in a safe continuous direction.
5. I’m curious how the officer can prove that it was my vehicle he was monitoring rather than any other in the pack.
6. I was not offered at any time to see tool that showed my speed was the same as ticketed, so I have no idea what model Radar, Lidar or Laser gun he used or if there was some sort of other device, tool or procedure used.
7. There was no identification of the tool used to gauge my speed listed on the citation. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if there have been re-calls or issues with that particular tool and also have no way of preparing a proper defense questioning the accuracy and/or history of this tool. So I can only question in general my knowledge of how a tool should work.
8. Q: Is there a manual or automatic reset on the tool used to gauge the speed of vehicles?
9. Q: How can it be proven that the tool was factually & properly reset?
10. Q: Can the officer show that the preceding tickets issued before mine were at a different speed than the alleged speed of my vehicle?
11. Because it was dark and the citation given was lightly printed, I was not able to read or then question any information on the citation. This may have been the reason I was not asked to sign it.
12. I can only imagine that the equipment used to cite the pack of cars in which I was driving has been updated since State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979) where a house clocked at 28 mph and a palm tree clocked at 86 mph and wherein this radar equipment was quickly shown to be less than accurate has been corrected but Q: How can I verify this and prepare a proper defense if I am not told what equipment was used? I cannot even review procedure or the manufacturer’s manual without knowing what equipment was used.
13. Also I have no knowledge as to whether or not a tuning fork(s) was/were used before and after this citation was issued, nor if the officer was trained in the proper procedure to use the tuning fork(s), nor if even a tuning fork(s) is any longer required to validate the use of his equipment. In any case Q: wouldn’t using tuning forks be tantamount to having the equipment test itself?
14. Because of the time of night the citation was issued as well as being unfamiliar with the area, I have no way of knowing or even suspecting if there were any external interference in the immediate or surrounding area which could very easily distort the reading of the equipment used. Nor could I return to the scene of the incident since the only information listed on the citation states SB-I5. Q: What does this mean? This could be anywhere in the county in which the ticket was issued. I can’t even gauge within a 50mile corridor where the citation was issued.
15. When the pack approached the parked police vehicle, the entire pack including me slowed. I slowed because the vehicles fronting me slowed. It’s difficult to tell what affect if any an entire pack of vehicles changing speed at the same time had on the equipment he was using.
16. I would also like to find out in preparation for my case what training guide and/or manual could the officer reference. Also, what type of targeting was used and if that this type of targeting was approved by the manufacturer.
17. Since it is not documented on my citation, even if the officer may have performed this calibration test, Q: did he document it in writing? And Q: could proof of this documentation be presented in his defense?
18. Q: In using the equipment, if mobile and not on a tri-pod, can the officer validate that the equipment was stationary and not hand held or moving forward in the direction of the pack thereby increasing the speed of the approaching pack? If the equipment was itself moving, this would place my vehicle at a severe disadvantage.
19. Q: In validating the accuracy of the equipment used, was the equipment level or at an angle?
20. Q: if at an angle, wouldn’t this show either an increased or decreased speed of the approaching vehicle?
21. Q: In that case, how could the equipment accurately measure the speed of my vehicle with any degree of accuracy?
22. It has been shown that the speeds are computed accurately as long as the officer is within a ten-degree angle as you approach. In this case, the officer was parked on an incline at who knows what angle. It’s anybody’s guess who has the edge but in any affect, can it be concluded that the reading listed is accurate?
23. Q: Was the officer in his vehicle with the AC on? When I arrived at the airport that night, I understand it was over 80*. Chances are he had his windows up and the AC on.
24. It has been documented that in 2004, the Pennsylvania State Police purchased hundreds of new radar guns. When sitting in their patrol units with their lasar guns pointed at the ground, they were clocking rocks traveling at 70 mph. Whether or not this issue has been corrected I don’t know but it is obvious that in this case that mechanical interference has been an issue.
"Your honor, courts have taken judicial notice that the prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of, before and after and reasonably close in time to the issuing of the said citation and must be documented in writing by the issuer of the citation."
Based on the foregoing 2nd Defense - I ask that this case be Dismissed with Prejudice.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 6, 2016______________
Defendant:
312 SW 1st Ave. ) Complainant RCW 46.61.400
Kelso, Washington 98626-1724 ) Date of Complaint – June 04, 2016 12:04am
Daniel Merritt complaining officer )
V.
Defendant )
. . . . . . . . . )
. . . . . . . . . . . . )
)
. . . . . . . . . )
. . . . . . . . )
. . . . . )
________________________________________)
Motion to Dismiss
1st Defense
RCW 46.61.400 - Basic rule and maximum limits.
I state under the penalty of perjury that all statements in response to the below listed rules and subsections listed on my citation that all my response(s) are accurate and complete.
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(1.1) I was driving at a safe and reasonable speed consistent with all others in my immediate vicinity.
(1.2) I was well aware of any and all driving conditions surrounding me as there were no potential hazards then existing.
(1.3) I was driving at a safe distance from all surrounding person(s) and vehicles in my vicinity.
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.
(a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;
(b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;
(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.
(2.1) No special hazard either on roadway or in the surrounding atmosphere required driving at a lower speed in compliance with any of the sub-sections listed herein.
(2.1.(a) (b) or (c) The posted speed on I-5 in the area cited is 70m.p.h. which was not listed in these sub-sections.
The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, and 46.61.415 has no application in this hearing as violation of these rules were not cited.
(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
(3.1.) This section has no application as there were no crossing intersection, railway grade crossing, the going around of a curve or approaching a hill crest. Nor were there any special hazards in existence, no pedestrians to consider or other traffic, and my driving was consistent with existing weather or highway conditions.
I argue that I was in compliance with this section as both worded and implied, there being no violation, I pray to have this case dismissed with prejudice.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 6, 2016______________
Defendant:
Motion for Discovery
To Compel Production
IRLJ 3.1 (b). Demand the radar, tuning fork(s), a radar technician excluding the testing personnel that tunes the equipment, a certified radar expert in doppler function for the subject equipment used, the certification of the officer and documentation that the issuing officer did in fact personally certify, calibrate and test the subject equipment by written documentation.
2nd Defense
DECLARATION of _______________________
Argument:
1. I am new to the area I had just gotten off the plane at 10:30pm and at the point of alleged citation was traveling in a pack of approx. 6 cars all traveling at the same speed.
2. The weather was clear, no rain, clouds or obstructions of any kind.
3. The only obvious reason I feel I was singled out was because I was the last car in the pack and therefore became the convenient target
4. I felt as if I was driving at a safe speed since the pack fronting me appeared to be safe drivers. There was no lane changing, no erratic movements and the pack was driving in a safe continuous direction.
5. I’m curious how the officer can prove that it was my vehicle he was monitoring rather than any other in the pack.
6. I was not offered at any time to see tool that showed my speed was the same as ticketed, so I have no idea what model Radar, Lidar or Laser gun he used or if there was some sort of other device, tool or procedure used.
7. There was no identification of the tool used to gauge my speed listed on the citation. Therefore, I have no way of knowing if there have been re-calls or issues with that particular tool and also have no way of preparing a proper defense questioning the accuracy and/or history of this tool. So I can only question in general my knowledge of how a tool should work.
8. Q: Is there a manual or automatic reset on the tool used to gauge the speed of vehicles?
9. Q: How can it be proven that the tool was factually & properly reset?
10. Q: Can the officer show that the preceding tickets issued before mine were at a different speed than the alleged speed of my vehicle?
11. Because it was dark and the citation given was lightly printed, I was not able to read or then question any information on the citation. This may have been the reason I was not asked to sign it.
12. I can only imagine that the equipment used to cite the pack of cars in which I was driving has been updated since State of Florida v. Aquilera (1979) where a house clocked at 28 mph and a palm tree clocked at 86 mph and wherein this radar equipment was quickly shown to be less than accurate has been corrected but Q: How can I verify this and prepare a proper defense if I am not told what equipment was used? I cannot even review procedure or the manufacturer’s manual without knowing what equipment was used.
13. Also I have no knowledge as to whether or not a tuning fork(s) was/were used before and after this citation was issued, nor if the officer was trained in the proper procedure to use the tuning fork(s), nor if even a tuning fork(s) is any longer required to validate the use of his equipment. In any case Q: wouldn’t using tuning forks be tantamount to having the equipment test itself?
14. Because of the time of night the citation was issued as well as being unfamiliar with the area, I have no way of knowing or even suspecting if there were any external interference in the immediate or surrounding area which could very easily distort the reading of the equipment used. Nor could I return to the scene of the incident since the only information listed on the citation states SB-I5. Q: What does this mean? This could be anywhere in the county in which the ticket was issued. I can’t even gauge within a 50mile corridor where the citation was issued.
15. When the pack approached the parked police vehicle, the entire pack including me slowed. I slowed because the vehicles fronting me slowed. It’s difficult to tell what affect if any an entire pack of vehicles changing speed at the same time had on the equipment he was using.
16. I would also like to find out in preparation for my case what training guide and/or manual could the officer reference. Also, what type of targeting was used and if that this type of targeting was approved by the manufacturer.
17. Since it is not documented on my citation, even if the officer may have performed this calibration test, Q: did he document it in writing? And Q: could proof of this documentation be presented in his defense?
18. Q: In using the equipment, if mobile and not on a tri-pod, can the officer validate that the equipment was stationary and not hand held or moving forward in the direction of the pack thereby increasing the speed of the approaching pack? If the equipment was itself moving, this would place my vehicle at a severe disadvantage.
19. Q: In validating the accuracy of the equipment used, was the equipment level or at an angle?
20. Q: if at an angle, wouldn’t this show either an increased or decreased speed of the approaching vehicle?
21. Q: In that case, how could the equipment accurately measure the speed of my vehicle with any degree of accuracy?
22. It has been shown that the speeds are computed accurately as long as the officer is within a ten-degree angle as you approach. In this case, the officer was parked on an incline at who knows what angle. It’s anybody’s guess who has the edge but in any affect, can it be concluded that the reading listed is accurate?
23. Q: Was the officer in his vehicle with the AC on? When I arrived at the airport that night, I understand it was over 80*. Chances are he had his windows up and the AC on.
24. It has been documented that in 2004, the Pennsylvania State Police purchased hundreds of new radar guns. When sitting in their patrol units with their lasar guns pointed at the ground, they were clocking rocks traveling at 70 mph. Whether or not this issue has been corrected I don’t know but it is obvious that in this case that mechanical interference has been an issue.
"Your honor, courts have taken judicial notice that the prosecution has a prima facie duty to establish that the radar unit was tested and found to be operating properly at the site of, before and after and reasonably close in time to the issuing of the said citation and must be documented in writing by the issuer of the citation."
Based on the foregoing 2nd Defense - I ask that this case be Dismissed with Prejudice.
Signed: _____________________________________ Dated: June 6, 2016______________
Defendant:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)