I think arguing it will definitely be an uphill battle. We are the accused and are expected to lie to get out of a ticket and the officer is supposedly unbiased and has no reason to lie and therefore wouldn't. That is my experience the one time I actually went to court to argue a ticket. That time, I was speeding trying to get to class on time, but the officer wrote the wrong date for the offense on the ticket. I thought it would be dismissed on this technicality. Wrong. The judge said it only had to be close.
Fast forward several years and while a local news crew was filming with an HOV lane officer a piece about HOV lane violators they catch one on camera. Turns out it was another HOV officer, but off-duty in his own truck. The ticket was written and the guy admitted guilt and was on his way. A few months later someone wrote the news station asking what ever happened to that officer. The station reported that when they investigated they were told the ticket was dismissed on a technicality because an error was made by the officer that issued the ticket.
Sorry, but even Charles has said that speeding tickets are a huge unethical source of revenue for many cities and municipalities. IIRC, he also thinks that all speeding ticket fines should go to the state and that as a result we would see a lot of these go away. I think it is very difficult to get a judge to find in favor of the citizen when reasonable doubt is cast on the validity of a ticket. That is, of course, JMHO.
I hope I haven't misrepresented you Charles.