In Search of Traffic Case Law? (Long)

[djmcmath]

I just came out of a traffic infraction citation hearing, and it wasn't at all pleasant. The officer in question was a professional in the performance of his duties, though the evidence shows that he's very junior, and made a few mistakes. (I remember when I was young -- I made all kinds of mistakes, and can hardly blame this guy.) In light of the details of the case, it seemed that a contested hearing would be pretty straightforward -- I had discussed the case with numerous people, including several lawyers and one police officer. Everyone said I'd get it dismissed even on one or two of the arguments, let alone the full binder of useful data I could present. ... Except that the judge had complete faith in the officer to be 100% correct about absolutely everything, and was blatantly biased against me.

So without bothering to belabour the details, I'm looking for some stuff for the appeal. Specifically, Washington State case law applicable to traffic would be most valuable, but other states would also have some use, if I can actually obtain a copy of them.
Here's what I'm looking for, and if anyone has any kind of leads or good info on where to find it, I'm desperate:
1. The judge held that officers are not required to have training in radar speed measuring devices. I know of two cases (Ohio v Wilcox, '74, and Minnesota v Gerdes, '71) that upheld the requirement that officers have training. If anybody knows of any others, or can point to WA state or federal requirements, that would work too.
2. The judge additionally held that 1 second of tracking history is perfectly adequate. I know the training manuals and radar SMD courses routinely require 3-5 seconds, but couldn't demonstrate that common knowledge point in front of him.
3. The judge held that if you overtake a vehicle travelling below the speed limit, it is legal to exceed the speed limit (this is IAW WA state laws). However, if, while you are overtaking, after you have commenced overtaking, the other vehicle accelerates (say 50-62, in this case), it is no longer legal to continue overtaking, regardless of whether or not this change is distinguishable to the vehicle overtaking. I don't know if there's any case law on this, but this is the critical point of the whole thing. In my appeal, I'll need to demonstrate that I could not have accurately determined the overtaken vehicle's speed while overtaking. (Come on -- I'm driving a 3.2L Carrera, 50-70 takes approx 3 seconds, by which point I'm nearly out in front of him already anyway!) I believe that overtaking a 50mph vehicle at 70mph in a 60mph zone is perfectly reasonable -- assuming that traffic is distant (>1mi), visibility is excellent, and the roads are clean and dry (all conditions met). If someone can point to case law showing otherwise, the reality check would also be appreciated. As this is an appeal, I don't think that I get to make new arguments or present new evidence, but I'm pretty sure that case law is still allowed.

So if anybody has case law to show that a) training is required to legally use radar SMDs, b) tracking history is required to make a legal radar case and c) the obscure overtaking case law to show that insignificant acceleration on the part of the overtaken vehicle does not constitute an infraction on the part of the overtaker I'd be deeply indebted to you.

Thanks a whole heap in advance,

Dan



BTW -- This is not the thread to complain about that unfair speeding ticket you received, or about that a** cop that you met the other week. I certainly do not want to start that thread again. The police officer, as I mentioned, was very professional and polite, and having reviewed all the facts, I can't blame him even a little bit for making the decisions that he made.

[84porsche]

I would recommend looking at www.findlaw.com - you might be able to research the case law. What exactly did you get the ticket for - speeding or an illegal lane change at high speed?? Can the ticket be fixed with traffic school?

[84porsche]

One other suggestion I would recommend is defending the accuracy of the speedometer as on a 3.2L Carrera vs the accuracy of the radar gun.

[RickM]

Originally posted by 84porsche
One other suggestion I would recommend is defending the accuracy of the speedometer as on a 3.2L Carrera vs the accuracy of the radar gun.

I'm surprised that they don't require training AND regular calibration of the radar gun. Usually they keep a log of such adjustments.

Good idea on the accuracy of your speedo. Take a GPS unit and a camera and see what you get.

[djmcmath]

The ticket was negligent driving, second degree, claimed 91 in a 60 as taking an action that an otherwise reasonable and careful individual would not take (and I agree -- 91 in a 60 is d@#^ quick, and a totally unreasonable speed for overtaking a 50mph vehicle). After demonstrating that I could not have accelerated at the required rate (accel curves from Paul Frere and the Bentleys), I followed up with demonstrating that the use of a radar SMD to track a contact accelerating at 8mph/sec is outside the certified limits and effectively removes it from the CPL (yes, I had the MMPSfPTRSMDs from the NTIS) to show that. The judge said he didn't believe a word I had said, then stipulated into fact that I had a peak speed of 70mph. The accuracy of the 20 year old radar gun which hadn't been maintained for the last half of it's life is no longer particularly a question, nor is the presence of high voltage power lines, nor the likelihood of HV lines causing resonant interference at 90mph (as can be mathematically demonstrated, and was during the hearing).

Thanks, though, 84. Oh, right -- findlaw -- I couldn't find any useful traffic case law there (except Crawford v Washington, which didn't work because apparently the Supreme Court of the United States of America doesn't hold sway over Jefferson County, WA). If you have a better recommendation on how to search, or some tips on case names or numbers that I don't have, I'd be ecstatic. I mean, really, ecstatic.

Thanks for the help, and thanks to those who bothered to read the whole thing. I'll put this post out in hard-cover version later this week.


Dan

[djmcmath]

RickM -- they do require calibration, and the radar was claimed to have been calibrated. I believe training is also required, but I can't find the case law to prove it. (FWIW, the certification and maintenance records for the radar were for $#!*; mostly illegible, no maint. inside the last 8 years, certification docs messy with conflicting dates, etc.)

Again, the speedo accuracy is no longer in question -- the judge stipulated into fact a peak overtaking speed of 70mph for me.

Dan

[RoninLB]

have you looked into the National Motorist Association ?

[Schrup]

Dan, if I had that hanging over my head, I would probable get an attorney. The judge wouldn't be able to blow off a good attorney as he did you. I take it it wasn't a WSP, or was it? That is scary stuff, I could easily be in your shoes. The worst part would be the 3 kinds of hell I would catch from my wife. I can hear it now,"I told you so".

[djmcmath]

I've talked to the attorney recommended by the NMA (yes, I'm a member). His rate is $400 per case, flat rate. Had I known what I'd be going in against, I would have paid that. I figured I had the thing licked, though. I am seriously considering hiring an attorney, though.

Yes, it was a WSP. Crazy, huh? They get some of the most expensive training in the country, but when they're young, they make mistakes just like the rest of us ...

Dan

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by djmcmath
I am seriously considering hiring an attorney, though.

so that means the Nat'l M A attorney ?
or a politically connected attorney ?
Sometimes politics and a previous contribution & affilation rules.

[djmcmath]

If I decide to give up and hire an attorney, it'd be the NMA recommended attorney, yes. If I knew an attorney who was specifically connected in in Jefferson County, I'd give him some serious credence. ...

Dan

[island911]

Understand one thing; Judges are first and foremost attornies themselves.

Showing up in court w/o an attorney is like showing-off your new self-installed fuse-box to a union electrician. The "professional" will be put-off that you dare tackle something of there livelyhood on your own.

Think thats wrong!? . . .they don't care. . . they don't have to.

[greglepore]

Dan-keep in mind that traffic law is state specific, what one state requires has no bearing on another state's standards. Almost all states have radar calibration requirements, few have training. The manufacturer's info can be useful wrt tracking etc, but because their market is law enforcement, they're not eager to share.

[RickM]

If the former prosecutor for that local is in private practice AND on good terms with the current administration then I'd give him/her a call.

[djmcmath]

Excellent points, all.

Island, I hadn't really thought of it that way. I had hoped that by doing my research, being able to quote important cases, being professional and presentable, etc. I could impress the judge with my respect for his court and my desire to prove my innocence. I can unfortunately see now how he might see it as "Legal work does not require a devoted professional; any amateur can do this successfully..." which is a personal insult.

Greg -- You're absolutely right on all of those things. I was under the impression that there were federal requirements for training, however, at least partially based on the radar cases from several states in the '70s and '80s. NHTSA or IACP, perhaps? The calibration requirements vary wildly from state to state, and even from one law enforcement organization to the next. I'm less concerned about those (the documents are highly questionable, but notarized, so therefore legal). I've spoken with several people at the manufacturer, but their word is hearsay unless they make a physical appearance to testify and be cross-examined (though the officer is not required to show, despite my 6th amendment rights). I had, in fact, an e-mail from the Program Manager of the radar SMD that the officer used, but it was ruled inadmissible as hearsay, obviously. And yes, that e-mail was tough to come by ...

Rick -- is there any way to find out who the former prosecutor was? Is that a public record item, "History of employment as prosecutor?"


Dan

[mikester]

Does Washington State require traffic surveys justifying the speed limit (assuming this was not a highway or interstate) required to defend a speed related citation? In CA I have been advised that if a traffic officer does not provide this survey (less that 5 years old) that your citation could be thrown out based on that alone.

I find it hard to understand that the judge would consider you guilty until proven innocent. That's very disturbing in and of itself and I might venture to make a complaint based upon that. There is no excuse for a public servant showing blatant disrespect for someone who is fighting a traffic citation.

[TSNAPCRACKLEPOP]

plea it down to a non moving violation with the prosecutor in non confrontation mode, pay a fine, move on......faster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

[djmcmath]

Speed limit surveys -- not required, and not provided. I requested the applicable survey via the WSDOT, and they laughed a lot and told me to go away. CA has actual traffic court, really. With laws that are upheld, 'n' stuff. Not like WA Kangaroo system...

I intend to file a grievance against the judge in question, though I need to wait until after the appeal. I totally agree -- it's abhorrent that a "civil servant" would do such a thing.

TSnap -- there was no prosecutor. Prosecution services were provided by the judge. Had I been assigned an opposing attorney, I would have felt much better about the whole thing. (sigh) Thanks, though.


Dan

[Scooter]

Dan,

Just get the attorney and then sleep pleasantly at night knowing you have someone who knows what they are doing on your side. Believe me, you will be much better off both legally and spiritually.

[island911]

Originally posted by djmcmath
. . . Prosecution services were provided by the judge. . ..

Ou-ouch! . . .ain't that the truth.

take scooters unbiased opinion and hire some defence.. .though I've got to say, $400 is rather steep. If thats his price, he should be able to get this taken care of with a simple phone call or letter (you shouldn't be bothered with the pedestrian task of apearing)