)TRAFFIC-MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF SAN JOSE
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
* On Thursday, April 27, 2000, the defendant was issued a citation forSTATEMENT OF FACTS
------------------
* On May 10, 2000, the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
issued a "courtesy notice" indicating a due date of July
10, 2000, and
an "amount due" of $146.00 and an "administrative fee amount"
of $159.
[Exhibit
B]
* On May 20, 2000, the defendant prepared an informal request for
discovery pursuant to the provisions of Sections
1054 et seq. of the
Penal Code, and delivered it by registered mail to the office
of the
District Attorney of the Traffic-Municipal Court. Defendant
included a
check in the amount of $159.00 to cover bond.
[Exhibit
C]
* The aforementioned informal request for discovery was delivered
to
one H. Dinh, and signed for by this individual on May 22,
2000.
[Exhibit
D]
* On May 26, 2000, the court returned paperwork for the preparation
of
a trial by written declaration, with no acknowledgement
of the request
for discovery. My bond check was returned to me.
[Exhibit
E]
* On June 7, 2000, the 15 days allotted for a response to the informal
request for discovery pursuant to Section
1054.5(b) of the Penal Code
had elapsed, and defendant submitted a written request for
a court order
for discovery pursuant to the provisions of this section.
[Exhibit F]
* On June 18, 2000, defendant received a reply to aforementioned
request
from one L. Apodaca, Legal Process Clerk III, indicating
that it was
necessary to come to the office and schedule a motion hearing
in person.
My bond check was once again returned to me.
[Exhibit G]
* On June 30, 2000, defendant scheduled a motion hearing for July
25, 2000.
[Exhibit H]
In accordance with Section 1054.5(b) of the Penal Code, having satisfiedMOTION
------
The records requested for discovery are repeated here for the convenience
of the court:
1. The issuing officer's training records that pertain to his instruction
certification, or continuation of traffic speed enforcement,
and to
the instruction and certification in the use of the
speed measuring
device that was used to ascertain the speed of the
vehicle described
in citation J2525877.
2. A copy of the departmental operations or procedures manual used
for the
training of this RADAR operator.
3. The officer's daily log for the day of April 27, 2000.
4. The officer's RADAR log for the day of April 27, 2000.
5. The name, model, and serial number of the device used to ascertain
the
speed of the vehicle described in citation J2525877,
and the serial
numbers of the tuning forks used to test the speed-measuring
device.
6. Copies of the maintenance, certification, and calibration records,
for
the last twelve months, of the speed measuring device
that was used
to ascertain the speed of the vehicle described in
citation J2525877.
7. A copy of the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) license
that
authorized the issuing police agency and operator
of the speed-
measuring device to lawfully operate the device on
a specific
frequency or range of frequencies.
8. A copy of that portion of the RADAR unit manufacturer's operator
manual
relating to field use and operation.
9. A copy of both sides of the officer's copy of citation J2525877.
10. A copy of the applicable city, county, or state policy, ordinance,
or
law, setting forth the procedure for determining
a ``safe speed''
to be noted on a citation, or a reference thereto.
11. A copy of any documentary evidence to be introduced in support
of this
citation.
The defense also moves that a continuance be granted in this matter
of
sufficient length to allow the San Jose Police time to produce
these
records and deliver them to defendant, and also to conform with
the
requirement that such disclosures shall be made at least 30 days
prior
to the trial date as set forth in Section
1054.7 of the Penal Code.
The defense thanks the court for its consideration of this matter.
DATED: _________________ /x/___________________________________________
Michael Vincent Pelletier
