[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.