The officer and the Judge (maybe) will tell you they are not required to bring anything or at least copies are acceptable. There are a number of case laws which can be found on various sites that date back to the 80's that originals are required of the cal cert especially on the stopwatch.
The other document that must bring is the PennDOT approved timing device and cal station document or request the court to take judicial notice of the existence of the document to show that in fact the stopwatch are approved and where they can be calibrated. In the case of Robic (stopwatches) it not specifically approved it just says they are allowed to be used as longs as the proper calibration documents are brought to court.
Yes it is a good idea to have the case laws available in the court if it comes to that.
Here are some good one to have
Commonwealth v.Gernsheimer, 276 Pa. Super. at 424, 419 A.2d at 530
Commonwealth v. Druschel, 276 Pa. Super. 418, 419 A.2d 528 (1980)
Commonwealth v. Cummings, 338 Pa. Super. 149, 487 A.2d 897 (1985)
Commonwealth v. Denney, 372 Pa. Super. 317, 539 A.2d 814 (1987)
You can use this cite to find these case laws
FindACase™ Network Pa.
Now this case is very recent and affirms the above cases and it is specific to a Robic stopwatch the court did a nice job of summarizing the rules which the officer and court must follow. This case is actually one of the few where the officer went step by step as they are suppose to, many times they read from the ticket and say you were speeding, and do not go through the formality. This case show how it suppose to happen even with error that was made.
http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/S19020_04.pdf
Now on the distance, I highly doubt the distance was 139ft, they are usually like 100, 125 150 or 200, it could have been a rounding error of something. Also, the stop watch can not accept 0.0265 as entered, since it limits the distance to 3 decimal places so he either had to enter 0.026 or 0.027 in their case the distance is wrong.
Also the law requires that the distance has to have been measured and calibrated. May times the officer never provides any evidence or testimony on the distance accuracy, some time they will say it was told to them which is considered hearsay.
Here is PA code on that subject, the timing strips are part of the equipment being use to measure the speed and as you see they are required to be calibrated. Keep in mind most towns have these lines all over the place so for the officer to remember which line is what distance he could be guessing or remembering wrong so it is his burden to prove that it is in fact 139ft, you do not have to prove it was wrong. Most people think you have to prove the distance, you only have to do that if the officer offers evidence (his word is not evidence if he did not measure it himself) that it was x distance and you know for a fact it was y distance, but if state can not prove x distance then they failed the burden of proof as the cases above have clearly stated
Title 75 § 3368 (d) Classification, approval and testing of mechanical, electrical and electronic devices.--The department may, by regulation, classify specific devices as being mechanical, electrical or electronic. All mechanical, electrical or electronic devices shall be of a type approved by the department, which shall appoint stations for calibrating and testing the devices and may prescribe regulations as to the manner in which calibrations and tests shall be made. The certification and calibration of electronic devices under subsection (c)(3) shall also include the certification and calibration of all equipment, timing strips and other devices which are actually used with the particular electronic device being certified and calibrated. Electronic devices commonly referred to as electronic speed meters or radar shall have been tested for accuracy within a period of one year prior to the alleged violation. Other devices shall have been tested for accuracy within a period of 60 days prior to the alleged violation. A certificate from the station showing that the calibration and test were made within the required period and that the device was accurate shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged.
I have not see any case law on timing strips where anyone had challenge whether they need to provide proof of the distance, I am not sure of the success of the tactic other than the fact I know of people who have challenge this and won when the officer was no able to provide adequate proof of the distance most time the officer said someone in the department told him the distance.
