racer72 said:
First to clear up a misconception that those not located in Washington may not know. Police officers are not required to appear in court for traffic tickets unless subpoena'd. The laws concerning traffic tickets, court appearances and how they are handled were overhauled in 1998. cepe, I seriously doubt you would have had the ticket thrown out. The disposition is all that is required now.
Hmmmm. looks like the rules for evidence do apply.... so an LEO not showing up and not providing foundation for speed measurements is actually not valid in WA state.
CrRLJ 6.13
EVIDENCE
(a) Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence are applicable
to criminal prosecutions.
(b) Test Reports by Experts.
(1) Generally. The official written report of an expert
witness which contains the results of any test of a substance or
object which are relevant to an issue in a trial shall be
admitted in evidence without further proof or foundation as prima
facie evidence of the facts stated in the report if the report
bears the following certification:
TEST CERTIFICATION
The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury that:
1. I performed the test on the (substance) (object) in
question;
2. The person from whom I received the (substance) (object)
in question is:
________________________________________________________;
3. The document on which this certificate appears or to which
it is attached is a true and complete copy of my official report;
and
4. Such document is a report of the results of a test which
report and test were made by the undersigned who has the
following qualifications and experience:
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________.
_________________________________
Signature
_________________________________
Title
_________________________________
Business Address and Phone
(2) Exclusion of Test Reports. The court shall exclude test
reports otherwise admissible under section (b) if:
(i) a copy of the certified report or certificate has not
been delivered or mailed to the defendant or the defendant's
lawyer at least 14 days prior to the trial date or, upon a
showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, or
(ii) in the case of an unrepresented defendant, a copy of
this rule in addition to a copy of the certified report or
certificate has not been delivered or mailed to the defendant at
least 14 days prior to the trial date or, upon a showing of
cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, or
(iii) at least 7 days prior to the trial date, or, upon a
showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, the
defendant has delivered or mailed a written demand upon the
prosecuting authority to produce the expert witness at the trial.
(c) Breathalyzer Maintenance, Simulator Thermometer, BAC
Verifier, and Simulator Solution Certificates.
(1) Admission of Certificate. In the absence of a request to
produce a Breathalyzer maintenance technician, a BAC Verifier
Data Master infrared instrument technician, or the person
responsible for preparing or testing simulator solutions made at
least 7 days prior to trial or such lesser time as the court
deems proper, certificates substantially in the following forms
are admissible in lieu of a state expert witness in any court
proceeding held pursuant to RCW 46.61.506 for the purpose of
determining whether a person was operating or in actual physical
control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquors:
(1) Admission of Certificate. In the absence of proof of a
request to produce an electronic or laser speed measuring device
(SMD) expert served on the prosecuting authority and filed with
the clerk of the court at least 30 days prior to trial or such
lesser time as the court deems proper, a certificate
substantially in the following form is admissible in lieu of an
expert witness in any court proceeding in which the design and
construction of an electronic or laser speed measuring device
(SMD) is an issue:
CERTIFICATION CONCERNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
AND LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
I, ____________________, do certify under penalty of perjury
as follows:
I am employed with ____________________ as a
________________________________. I have been employed in such a
capacity for _____ years. Part of my duties include supervising
the maintenance and repair of all electronic and laser speed
measuring devices (SMDs) used by ____________________ (name of
agency).
This agency currently uses the following SMDs:
(List all SMDs used and their manufacturers and identify which
SMDs use laser technology.)
I have the following qualifications with respect to the above
stated SMDs:
(List all degrees held and any special schooling regarding the
SMDs listed above.)
This agency maintains manuals for all of the above stated
SMDs. I am personally familiar with those manuals and how each of
the SMDs are designed and operated. On _____ (date) testing of
the SMDs was performed under my direction. The units were
evaluated to meet or exceed existing performance standards. This
agency maintains a testing and certification program. This
program requires:
(State the program in detail.)
Based upon my education, training, and experience and my
knowledge of the SMDs listed above, it is my opinion that each of
these electronic pieces of equipment is so designed and
constructed as to accurately employ the Doppler effect in such a
manner that it will give accurate measurements of the speed of
motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained
operator or, in the case of the laser SMDs, each of these pieces
of equipment is so designed and constructed as to accurately
employ measurement techniques based on the velocity of light in
such a manner that it will give accurate measurements of the
speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by
a trained operator.
_________________________________
Signature
Dated: _________________________
(e) Continuance. The court at the time of trial shall hear
testimony concerning the alleged offense and, if necessary, may
continue the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining (1) the
maintenance technicians presence for testimony concerning the
working order of the Breathalyzer machine and the certification
thereof, (2) evidence concerning the working order of the BAC
Verifier Data Master instrument and the certification thereof,
(3) evidence concerning the preparation of the BAC Verifier Data
Master simulator solution and the certification thereof, or (4)
evidence concerning an electronic speed measuring device or laser
speed measuring device and the certification thereof. If, at the
time it is supplied, the evidence is insufficient, a motion to
suppress the results of such test or readings shall be granted.
[Amended effective September 1, 1987; September 1, 1998;
September 1, 2002.]