Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Radar Contest topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judge dismisses 62 mph radar speeding citation after contested hearing

King County District Court (Infraction Calendar) · August 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Nicholas Olson successfully contested a July 16 radar speeding ticket, arguing the 62 mph reading was implausible on the short stretch of SR 522; after testimony the judge dismissed the citation.

Nicholas Olson contested a July 16, 2025, speeding citation that cited a radar reading of 62 mph in a 40‑mph zone. The city submitted a radar affidavit signed by Lake Forest Park Officer Risk (badge L328) describing a radar reading of 62 mph with calibration checks before and after the citation.

Olson testified he regularly drives the short stretch between 61st Avenue and Ballinger Way, described significant daily congestion there and said it was implausible he could reach 62 mph on the 0.6‑mile segment where the citation was issued. He shared a map during testimony and said body‑worn camera footage would show he was coasting and slowed for traffic.

After weighing the officer's affidavit and Olson's testimony, Judge Jennifer Grant said the discrepancy between the radar reading and Olson's account was substantial and dismissed the speeding citation. "I will dismiss this violation," she said.

Why it matters The case shows how contested speeding citations can turn on the mix of instrument affidavits and driver testimony about roadway conditions; judges may dismiss citations when testimonial credibility and scene constraints raise reasonable doubt about an instrument reading.

What to watch next No further action will be taken on the dismissed citation; the court will not mail an invoice for Olson. The officer's affidavit remains part of the public file if the city elects any administrative follow‑up.