Read what you wrote about the officer's obligation:
Originally Posted by boops
“I declare under the penalties of perjury that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.”
At the time, the officer believed that to be true "to the best of [his] information."
Ya know, you can toss all that falderal out there, but don't expect the judge to buy it. Perhaps if the officer made a slew of small errors an argument might be made that he was having a bad day paying attention to details ... but, an incorrect birthdate?
Doesn't this challenge the officers ability to function or concentrate? Therefore it could of affected his ability to operate the radar gun and incorrectly determine my speed. It makes the officer not credible anymore to the alleged violation. I know lots of things are going through his mind during the time that he has me pulled over on the side of the road. So it is understandable to get a tiny detail such as this wrong. But it still questions his credibility to overall violation.
Hopefully you have something a little more substantive to raise in your defense. The radar issues that IGB responded to would seem to be far more valid than this birthdate thing. I would suggest you look into those as possible arguments.
However, keep in mind that radar training also means he has almost certainly been formally trained in the visual estimation of speed as well. So, even if the radar might be skewed a bit, he might still be able to get you on a visual estimate.