Speeding ticket by pacing

[slyphen]

Originally Posted by Dvipercop

All this work... Wouldn't it just be easier to obey the speed limit?

I would consider overtaking a car at 70 in a 60 zone somewhat reasonable lol

[Traxem]

Reason why LEO's words are more credible than yours is because the officer has less incentive to lie. If you want to win, you have to show that it's less likely that you were speeding than you were speeding.

All these technicalities that you want to bring up doesn't add up to much unless you can apply context. So what if the radar gun wasn't calibrated? How are so sure it is off by enough to show that it's unlikely that you were speeding? You need context. Also, if you want the officer to show up, you'll want to ask the judge for a subpoena.

Lawyers are better at this because they know the rules better than you so they present the facts better--not to mention they know the best arguments and strategies to win.

[Dadhawk]

@Traxem I agree with most of what you said but...

Originally Posted by Traxem

So what if the radar gun wasn't calibrated? How are so sure it is off by enough to show that it's unlikely that you were speeding?

...my understanding is this is a disqualifier in itself if that is all that was used to measure your speeding. There has to be an accurate measurement of the event, and not just a "besides, it looked like he was speeding to me" from the LEO. If the radar gun is not calibrated per the manufacturer's specifications there is no guarantee it is accurate.

[slyphen]

Originally Posted by Traxem

Reason why LEO's words are more credible than yours is because the officer has less incentive to lie. If you want to win, you have to show that it's less likely that you were speeding than you were speeding.

All these technicalities that you want to bring up doesn't add up to much unless you can apply context. So what if the radar gun wasn't calibrated? How are so sure it is off by enough to show that it's unlikely that you were speeding? You need context. Also, if you want the officer to show up, you'll want to ask the judge for a subpoena.

Lawyers are better at this because they know the rules better than you so they present the facts better--not to mention they know the best arguments and strategies to win.

When the lawyers fight this kind of case they will use the same strategy. A technicality. If the instrument is not calibrated then there is a lack of evidence. Same if the officer doesn't show. This is stated in title 49 of Washington traffic law not something I'm jus trying to bring up and hoping to sway the judge in opinion

[Traxem]

Originally Posted by slyphen

When the lawyers fight this kind of case they will use the same strategy. A technicality. If the instrument is not calibrated then there is a lack of evidence. Same if the officer doesn't show. This is stated in title 49 of Washington traffic law not something I'm jus trying to bring up and hoping to sway the judge in opinion

I don't think an attorney will go through the trouble of issuing a subpoena just to see if the cop shows up. Be prepared to cross examine the cop on his training and radar gun if you do. No subpoena and the cop isn't required to be there.

I once sat in a court room where the cop testified that she was trained to visually estimate a car's speed from a stationary position with a 5 mph degree of error. She pulled a car over when it zipped passed her, and it turned out to be a DUI. She put in the report that the car was traveling approximately 45-50 mph. The judge ruled that the stop was legal and the cop was treated as an expert.

The gov't just has to show that it was more likely than not that you were speeding. What I meant by knowing strategies and rules has more to do with strategies. Filing a motion to dismiss in advance, allowing the gov't to file a response, and arguing the merits at a hearing is appreciated by the judge.

[slyphen]

Originally Posted by Traxem

I don't think an attorney will go through the trouble of issuing a subpoena just to see if the cop shows up. Be prepared to cross examine the cop on his training and radar gun if you do. No subpoena and the cop isn't required to be there.

I once sat in a court room where the cop testified that she was trained to visually estimate a car's speed from a stationary position with a 5 mph degree of error. She pulled a car over when it zipped passed her, and it turned out to be a DUI. She put in the report that the car was traveling approximately 45-50 mph. The judge ruled that the stop was legal and the cop was treated as an expert.

The gov't just has to show that it was more likely than not that you were speeding. What I meant by knowing strategies and rules has more to do with strategies. Filing a motion to dismiss in advance, allowing the gov't to file a response, and arguing the merits at a hearing is appreciated by the judge.

He didn't get me with radar, he paced me. which there is no official training for anywhere in the states. however that is beside the point, i'm not relying on the training defense. i need to see the calibration certificate and its dates to determine if i can use that in my favor. At this point i will decide on getting a lawyer or not after my request for discovery.

[slyphen]

Beat ticket. My request for discovery was late 2 days so I motioned for continuum. But prosecutors office no longer accept requests for discovery therefore the judge dismissed the case.