Flyboy

I was seen late morning for a speeding ticket. Shortly after starting to question the Cop on some basic information the judge asked what my point was. I explained that I was going to show that with me being in amoungst a group of cars the cop couldn't have determined which was speeding. At that point the judge said, "I don't want to hear anymore, it's been a long morning he had radar, do you have anything final to say." What a scumbag.

mpwolf

I was replying to the "radar user certificate".

geoff

(note: I didn't want to appear in person so I submitted the below affidavit instead as my defense. Later I received a letter in the mail stating that after reading my evidence the judge had ruled me guilty. Anyway, it was worth a try. Good luck.)


---------------------------
AFFIDAVIT

Defendant's Name: XXXXXX
Case No.: XXXXX

I, XXXXXX, the above-named defendant, under oath depose and say: I plead Not Guilty to the charge of Violation of Basic Rule, ORS 811.100.

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving southbound on 99E on 11/27/01, I was stopped by Officer XXXX(I.D.#XXXX) and was charged with violating ORS 811.100. The Officer has alleged that I was driving 50mph in a 35mph zone based on Laser evidence. I believe that I was driving approximately 40mph at the time of my stop. The Speed on 99E changes from 35mph to 45mph less than one half mile south from where I was stopped.

On the Officer's affidavit he notes relevant conditions as "Medium" traffic and "Night" visibility. No other conditions were noted and I can attest that the road was dry with no adverse weather conditions at the time of my stop. I know that I was traveling at a Safe and Reasonable speed for conditions on 99E when I was stopped.

Further, I believe that the Officer's Laser device may have tracked one of several cars other than mine. There were cars driving in front of me and also passing me as I proceeded down 99E. The officer's affidavit also states that my "vehicle was visually faster than the posted speed", even though he measured it at "730 feet" in "Night" visibility, with "Medium" traffic. With regard to these facts there is reasonable doubt as to which car's speed his Laser unit was indicating and his overall ability to accurately determine my speed given the said conditions.

I am requesting documented proof showing that the Officer's Laser device was successfully checked and certified for calibration before and after my citation was issued, pursuant to OAR 166-116-0010 (55), Radar Equipment Certification and Maintenance Records. I am also requesting that the Officer provide documented proof stating that he has successfully passed a training course to operate the Laser device used to measure my alleged speed, AND stating that the training course was approved by his employer, pursuant to ORS 810.420, Use of speed measuring device; citation; training, which states: <i>"A police officer may not issue a citation based on a speed measuring device unless the officer has taken and passed a training course, approved by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer, in the use of the speed measuring device".</i> If the prosecution cannot provide the requested proof to establish as part of its prima facie case that I was in violation of ORS 811.100, I trust the Court will rule the Laser evidence inadmissible and dismiss my case.

In addition, my actual and/or alleged speed is not prima facie evidence of violation as established by ORS 811.105, 811.110, and 811.123 defining maximum speed limits for highways, such as 99E, at 55mph.

Based on the above evidence, I know that I was not in violation of the Basic Speed Rule at the time and place of my citation and, pursuant to the common sense spirit of ORS 811.100, contest that my speed at the time of my traffic stop was therefore not per se unlawful. I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.


Dated: 03/27/2002




____________________________
XXXXX, Defendant




Subscribed and sworn affirmed before me _________, 2002



____________________________
Clerk/Notary

perfution

Yes. Get a good attorney. Evidentiary phase uncovered procedural errors. And, there are strict methods of how to use these things to ensure accuracy. And get this--when the DA was told by my attorney that their case had issues, he offered to let her client (me) pay $100 to a charity in their name! In any other format, this would be extortion. Since then, I've bought a Lidatek.