Cause No.

________________

CITY OF ________________
COUNTY OF ______________
STATE OF WASHINGTON

Plaintiff ___________________________

v.

Defendant ___________________________

IRLJ 3.1 (a); IRLJ 3.3 (d); IRLJ 2.6 (a)(2); IRLJ 6.6 (b)
SUBPOENA FOR THE CITING OFFICER & SPEED MEASURING DEVICE EXPERT

The defendant respectfully submits this SUBPOENA for the citing officer
___________________, Badge No. _____________ and for the “Speed Measuring Device
Expert” pursuant to IRLJ 3.1(a), IRLJ 3.3 (d); IRLJ 2.6 (a)(2); IRLJ 6.6 (b) & CrRLJ 6.13 (d).
We are also requesting the presence of an electronic speed measuring device expert
pursuant to IRLJ 6.6 (b) & CrRLJ 6.13 (d) to the extent necessary to establish the prosecution's
case. The SMD Expert must first qualify as an expert pursuant to ER 702. We are also
requesting the presence of each and every person who actually certified the particular radar unit
or speedometer used in this case. It is my understanding that the devices are certified every six
months by the SMD experts. The presence of certifier is also requested. We also object to the
admission of any certificate or affidavit in lieu of live testimony concerning the design, operation
or construction of any such speed measuring device at motions hearing or trial.
IRLJ 3.1 (a) reads:

“RULE IRLJ 3.1 CONTESTED HEARINGS--PRELIMINARY

PROCEEDINGS (a) Subpoena. The defendant and the plaintiff may subpoena
witnesses necessary for the presentation of their respective cases. Witness' should
be served at least 7 days before the hearing. The subpoena may be issued by a
judge, court commissioner, or clerk of the court or by a party's lawyer. If a party's
lawyer issues a subpoena, a copy shall be filed with the court and with the office
of the prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the infraction is filed
on the same day it is sent out for service. A request that an officer appear at a
contested hearing pursuant to rule 3.3(c) shall be filed on a separate pleading. A
subpoena may be directed for service within their jurisdiction to the sheriff of any
county or any peace officer of any municipality in the state in which the witness
may be or it may be served as provided in CR 45(c), or it may be served by first-
 class mail, postage prepaid, sent to the witnesses' last known address. Service by
mail shall be deemed complete upon the third day following the day upon which
the subpoena was placed in the mail. If the subpoena is for a witness outside the
county, a judge must approve of the subpoena. . . .”

IRLJ 3.3 (c) reads:

“RULE IRLJ 3.3 PROCEDURE AT CONTESTED HEARING . . .

. . .(c) Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence and statutes that relate to
evidence in infraction cases shall apply to contested hearings. The court may
consider the notice of infraction and any other written report made under oath
submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the
basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at
the hearing, unless the defendant has caused the officer to be served with a
subpoena to appear in accordance with instructions from the court issued
pursuant to rule 2.6(a)(2).”

IRLJ 2.6 (a)(2) reads:

“RULE 2.6 SCHEDULING OF HEARINGS (a) Contested Hearings. ...

. . . (2) The court shall send the defendant written notice of the time, place, and
date of the hearing within 21 days of the receipt of the request for a hearing. The
notice of the hearing shall also include statements advising the defendant of
the defendant's rights at the hearing, how the defendant may request that
witnesses be subpoenaed, and that failure to appear may be a crime for which the
defendant may be arrested, and, in a traffic infraction case, the defendant's
privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be suspended. If a local rule is adopted
implementing sections (a)(1)(i) and (ii), the court shall advise the defendant in the
notice of the defendant's right to waive the prehearing conference.”

CONCLUSION & RELIEF REQUESTED: Failure to produce both the “citing

officer” as well as the ER 702 “SMD experts” will result in a motion to exclude any evidence or
dismiss pursuant to Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923); City of Bellevue v.
Hellenthal, 144 Wn.2d 425, 28 P.3d 744 (Aug. 2001); Seattle v. Peterson, 39 Wn. App. 524
(1985); State v. Cauthron, 120 Wn.2d 879 (1993); State v. Riker, 123 Wn.2d 351 (1994); State v.
Barker, 98 Wn.App. 439 (Dec. 1999); Bellevue v. Mociulski, 51 Wn.App. 855, 756 P.2d 1320
(June 27, 1988); RCW 46.61.470 (1); IRLJ 6.6 (b) and CrRLJ 6.13(d).

Print Name here: _____________________ Sign Name here: ____________________________

Dated this ______ day of ______________________, A.D, 2008