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: