How to Beat A Speeding Ticket In Washington State

I got another speeding ticket last month and pretty much have my defense written up and I'm going to court Jan. 7th. I just thought people might like to see how to beat these bums at their own game. I'm aware that the laws and procedures are different in other states, so you have to adjust for your state.

Four things for success
1. Look at what they're really saying and not saying.
2. Look up the laws.
3. Look up the court rules.
4. Hopefully know some cases you can quote

Definitions
SMD = Speed Measuring Devise
WSP = Washington State Patrol

Evidence: (I edited out personal & case identifying info)

Ticket
//www.curezone.org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Pics/Ticket_Edited.jpg


Cops Affidavit
//www.curezone.org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Pics/Affidavit_Edited.jpg


1st page of Speed Measuring Devise Certificate
//www.curezone.org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Pics/First_Edited_Page_Of_Ce...


2nd page of Speed Measuring Devise Certificate
//www.curezone.org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Pics/Second_Edited_Page_Of_C...


3rd Page of Speed Measuring Devise Certificate
//www.curezone.org/upload/Members/ChazTheMeatHe/Pics/Third_Edited_Page_Of_Ce...



My Defense
No Jurisdiction
1. I move to dismiss this case because the Officer does not state which code I allegedly violated. The ticket does not contain the elements of a violation, so the court and prosecutor are not empowered to act on this case. The officer states I violated RCW 41.61.400 which is not a code, but a title to a group of three codes. (1) Is for driving with due care. (2) Describes the maximum default speed limits in the state and says they should not be exceeded. (3) Is a list of circumstances when vehicles should drive below the speed limit. Since it is impossible to violate all 3 of those codes, it is impossible for anyone to proceed with this case. This is no more than the Officer saying I violated the law without saying which law I violated. Without knowing which law I violated, there is nothing for the court to do. It is an empty claim with no standing. No assumptions or theoretical possibilities can be made by the court, prosecutor or defense. We can only deal with the facts on the record. We can not ask ourselves what the Officer meant or assume what he meant; we can only look at the record and proceed with that. So the court has no subject matter jurisdiction, and the ticket is in violation of court rule IRLJ 2.1(b) (4), because the Officer did not “state the infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed.” So this case must be dismissed according to the courts own rules.
2. The court also has no jurisdiction because the plaintiff (Pierce County) is not present to testify to anything, or be cross examined, did not witness anything or make any oral or written pleadings to empower the court to act in the case because the plaintiff does not physically exist, and cannot possibly fulfill those requirements. All of these elements that are required by the court to act, are missing in this case. The court can not operate without enough facts to show it can and must act. And under evidence rule ER801(c) the officer’s statement are hearsay because he is not here today to testify and be cross examined under oath and penalty of perjury. His statements are in violation of the courts hearsay rule. That means all the evidence presented by him against me can not be considered as evidence according to the court’s own rules and the case is flat on its face. The only one here today who witnessed the event, has any first hand knowledge and testimony under oath and penalty of perjury, is me. That means the case has been dismissed by the plaintiff. It is not proceeding with the matter. Jurisdiction requires (1) two opposing parties which does not exist in this case; (2) subject matter jurisdiction which is also missing; and (3) a competent witness from both parties, and there is only me. This case lacks jurisdiction and standing, violates ER801 and is solely based on hearsay and does not have enough evidence, testimony or pleadings to empower the court to act on, and I move it be dismissed.
Not Even An Affidavit
3. The affidavit was not even written by the Officer and is merely a template provided by the State Patrol for the Officer to fill in the blanks, and is not his actual account of what happened. This also means there is no real evidence against me. Clearly the Officer only filled in the hand written parts on the affidavit, which is the ticket number, radar readings and his signature. That can not be considered an account of the event in anyone’s book, or even be considered his statement by any standard. This also shows the evidence is not even his. I move that the alleged affidavit be stricken from the record because it’s not his and has no standing.
Affidavit
4. There is no evidence proving the alleged affidavit was written by the Officer. The affidavits I present are notarized provable to the court. For all we know the three things on the affidavit were written or forged by some one else. He is not here today to testify to the facts, or state he wrote it or be cross examined; which is in violation of Court Rule ER801 (c), and may not be considered as evidence, and is a third party in the matter. I move the affidavit be made stricken from the record on the Hearsay Rule, and lack of standing.
5. The Officer states he tested the radar devise on the date of the alleged infraction and then states “before and after the stop, Laser L1332 was found to be in proper working order.” He does not state how he made that determination. Or if he conducted a test to prove that statement or what test it was if any, to prove it was in proper working order during the stop. So it is merely an opinion and hearsay under ER 801 (c). So I move his statement that it was operating properly at the time of the alleged infraction be expunged from the record.
6. According to the Officer’s affidavit, the testing he did for the accuracy of the devise on that day was apparently only a self diagnoses test done by the devise itself, which is verified by the SMD Certificate. There is no way a malfunctioning devise can accurately test itself. If the test was conducted using outside measurements or devises, there is no evidence proving that or that it was witnessed or is certified to be accurate. Due to the lack of proof proving the radar devise was operating properly, the statement must not be allowed on the record.
7. The SMD Certificate also states the radar devise will meet WSP standards “when properly calibrated”. The Officer does not state anywhere in the alleged affidavit that he calibrated it at any time that day and especially before using it during that radar session. According to the SMD expert, the Officer did not operated the devise to properly obtain an accurate reading. So the speed measurement must be stricken from the record.
No Probable Cause
8. The Officer also states he observed my vehicle approaching him in what “appeared to be in excess of the posted speed limit.” Then he obtained a reading which allegedly confirmed his visual observation. At 75 miles per hour, my vehicle would be moving at 110 feet per second. It would take at least 3 seconds for him to observe me and determine he thinks I’m speeding. And then at least 3 more seconds to get the gun, turn it on and raise it up and aim exactly at my small car over a quarter mile away during rush hour traffic on I-5 and lock on to me. And I’m sure the gun can not read the Officer’s mind and tell him he has the right car he’s allegedly observing so who knows if he was measuring my car for sure. Then it would take about 3 more seconds to obtain the 4 readings he states he obtained on my car. So that’s 9 seconds total for the whole process. And he reported his last reading was at 1,103ft away. At 9 seconds, I would have traveled 990ft. And 990ft plus the 1,103ft from the last reading would be 2,093ft, or basically 2,100ft away when he first started observing me straight on with at least 30 cars in between him and my car. A half mile is 2,640ft. So he allegedly started observing my little KIA Soul 500ft short of a ½ mile away coming at him straight on with at least 30 cars in between him and my vehicle. I believe it is impossible for someone to pick out a small car coming at them straight on in a group of that many cars a ½ mile away during rush hour traffic on I-5 and determine it’s speeding no matter how good their eyes are. They wouldn’t need a radar gun if that’s the case. The only way he could have told who is speeding for sure at that distance is by a radar gun. This means the Officer had no probable cause to search my vehicle speed in the first place because he couldn’t visually determine how fast I was going at that distance, and I believe that statement by him is false. He was simply radaring everybody in sight so he could write a ticket like we always see the police doing along the side the roads. They look through the radar devise first and then try to match up the car they saw on the radar devise. I do not believe he observed anything except through a radar gun. I believe using the Officer’s own statements prove his statements are false, proves he didn’t have probable cause in the first place and can not be relied on as a competent witness and I move his statements be removed from the record because they are false or at best misleading and unreliable.
Illegal Search
9. I move to dismiss this ticket because it was an illegal search of my vehicle’s speed done without a search warrant. In State v. Young, the Washington State Supreme Court found that the officer’s use of an infrared thermal detection device constituted a search.

In State v. Seagull the Court established the open view doctrine which states:
"As a general proposition, it is fair to say that when a law enforcement officer is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while lawfully present at a vantage point where the senses are used, that detection does not constitute a "search."

In State v. Young, the Court stated that the infrared thermal devise enabled officers to effectively "see through walls" of the defendant’s home, and was therefore beyond the mere enhancement of the officer’s senses. A speed measuring devise is "beyond the mere enhancement of the officer’s senses", since it allows him to see things that he could not see with “one or more of his senses.” Even dogs sniffing for drugs requires a search warrant since it allows them to detect something they could not detect using “one or more of their senses”. It’s the same with wire taps. It’s the same for car searches. They need warrants to obtain information they could not obtain using “one or more of their senses”.

The officer radaring me does not have laser vision, and since speed measuring devises allow him to see things that he could not see with “one or more of his senses”; it is a violation of the plain view doctrine and constitutes an illegal search according to the Washington State Supreme Court. And there is no state law that allows an Officer to measure or record my speed without a warrant. So I move the ticket be dismissed.
The Officer Lied
10. The Officer flat out lied to my wife and myself when he told us the ticket was for $75. My wife and I testify to that fact under penalty of perjury in our notarized affidavits. The Officer lying to us shows the officer’s statements can not be trusted, relied on or taken as fact, and I move that his testimony be removed from the record.
State Law
11. I move the ticket be dismissed because the Officer did not measure my vehicle speed the proper distance according to RCW 46.61.470 (1), (2) or (3) which requires him to measure my speed through a measured, designated, or determined distance or section of any public highway “not closer than one-fourth mile”. And that’s required no matter which subsection you apply. This is the only code that deals with using speed measuring devises. The Officer states his last measurement was at 1,103ft which means it does not comply with the “not closer than one-fourth mile” part of the law which would be 1,320ft. Plus he does not state what the length of roadway he measured me entering and leaving was. So the measurement does not comply with state law. Without that, the case has no standing. So I move the alleged reading of my vehicle speed be expunged from the record because it violates state law, and the court can not enforce something illegal.
12. I move to dismiss on the grounds that there is no evidence proving the alleged posted speed limit is lawful by conducting engineering and traffic surveys required by the Secretary of Transportation in RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410 or 46.61.415. Without that it is only presumed to be the lawful speed limit and has not been proven. The court can not enforce something that is not based in fact, and can not act due to lack of evidence proving a law was violated.
Testing
13. The affidavit shows the officer did not test the radar devise for outside interference like ham radio’s, CB’s or even his own motor cycle before starting the radar session. So the reading cannot be relied on as accurate and I move the reading be stricken from the record.
14. The radar devise was not certified by or on the motor cycle to ensure the motor cycle itself doesn’t cause interference during use. So there is no way to know the reading was accurate and I move the reading be removed from the record.
Court Rule Violated
15. I mailed a letter to the court clerk and requested the evidence against me be sent to me and I was not given a copy of the SMD Certificate required by Court Rule OMCLR 3.5 (A). Section (A) talks about the speed measuring devise certificate and states “Copies shall be provided by the clerk's office on request.” The clerk sent me a letter giving directions to a web site instead. The rule does not allow the clerk to substitute directions to a web site for a copy of the SMD Certificate. So the court rules were violated by a member of the court in the discovery process of this case against me. And the directions provided to me said to enter the “tag number” without explaining what that is. So the court rules were violated and I was denied discovery and due process and sent confusing information by the court. According to the court’s own rules, this case must be dismissed.
Certificate
16. There is no evidence proving the radar devise was certified on the required schedule according to Washington State Patrol standards. On page 2 the certificate states their program requires the devise be certified “at least once every two years”. There is no statement on the certificate stating the requirement was met according to their schedule. Any statement made about the radar devise being accurate, working properly and certified cannot be relied on as fact in this case, and I move the certificate be stricken from the record and the case dismissed.
17. The speed measuring device certificate does not meet Court Rule IRLJ 6.6 requirements which states it requires “a certificate in substantially the same form” as the one outlined in that rule. According to that rule, the certificate is supposed to “List all SMD’s used and their manufacturer’s and identify which SMD’s use laser technology.” And it’s supposed to state the “date testing of the SMD’s was preformed.” The certificate does not contain a list of all SMD’s used or much less the date they were certified. This certificate does not meet those requirements of the court. I have seen children receive failing grades for not following a prescribed writing format at school. Are we going to allow grownups working for the state to get away with not following the directions of the court, when schools give children failing grades for doing the same?

That rule also says “State the program in detail” and the certificate does not even include things like what qualifications the tester has or is required to have, or who actually tested it and where. Court Rule IRLJ 6.6 talks about the certificate, and says that “If at the time it (the certificate) is supplied, the evidence is insufficient, a motion to suppress the readings of such devise shall be granted.” There is no wiggle room with the word shall. It must be granted if motioned. I am making the motion to suppress the certificate because it is undeniably insufficient and does not meet the courts requirements in Rule IRLJ 6.6.

Conclusion
In conclusion your Honor, I have shown that state law and court rules were violated, not followed or met; and the case is totally based on hearsay. The affidavit is not the Officer’s account of what happened and the certificate does not meet court’s requirements and is undeniably insufficient. The Officer did not have probable cause and the speed measurement was an illegal search. Clearly a preponderance of evidence has not even been close to met in this case, as required by state law. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and can not entertain or act on this case and must dismiss; and I move the court to do so.
Tweet