Traffic Stop Out of Officer's Jurisdiction

[yazoo]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: Washington, King County District Court.

I was caught speeding on radar. I believe the Port of Seattle officer was out of his jurisdiction. I have subpoenaed the officer so I may ask him whether or not he was in his jurisdiction. If he indeed was not, is the case automatically dismissed? Would I need to quote any particular RCW?

I was around Interbay, traveling South on 15th Avenue west, just south of Whole foods. The officer was parked on the west side of 15th, in the gravel parking lot shown in the middle of this screenshot: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=seattl...01725&t=h&z=19

Does anyone know if a port of seattle police officer is within his jurisdiction here? Thank you

[blewis]

This could be rather interesting. I hope you'll let us know how it turns out. But, meanwhile, here are my thoughts:

First, a lot is going to depend upon exactly WHERE the OFFICER claims the infraction occurred. Keep in mind that even if it REALLY didn't occur there, the court will almost always accept the officer's word for it -- unless you have witnesses or photographic evidence to the contrary.

Second, did you submit a discovery request yet? If not, you need to do that. That way you'll KNOW what the officer is going to testify to.

Third, Port of Seattle officers have jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 53.08.280, which states that the officers have, "full police powers to enforce all applicable federal, state, or municipal statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances upon any port-owned or operated properties or operations". So, what you'll need to find out is whether the location of the infraction as SPECIFIED BY THE OFFICER is part of the Port's property. It doesn't look like it from the map, but you'll probably have to call the Port Authority and ask.

However, you still have to worry about a "mutual law enforcement assistance agreement" pursuant to RCW 10.93.070 (3). You can call the Seattle Police and try to find out from them.

This is going to take some work on your part, some time to do the homework. I don't imagine it will be easy.

Perhaps some of the others here will come up with a few ideas once you receive your discovery materials.

Good luck,
Barry

[yazoo]

first off, thank you blewis for the link regarding port of seattle police jurisdiction. I honestly spent some time both on expertlaw and the wa.gov site looking for that rcw.

According to the officers statement: "[I was in] the 1700 block of Elliot Ave W.....I saw the violators vehicle approaching me rapidly from the north in the 1700 block of Elliot Ave W...The violators vehicle was passing slower traffic at the time of the violation."

[blewis]

Ah, so you DO have the officer's statement. If you can, please scan it and post it so we can take a look at it after you remove any personally identifying information.

Barry

[yazoo]

Sorry I do not have access to a scanner, but all pertinent information related to where the officer was is in my above post. Everything else in the statement is just your standard radar related blah blah blah.

Regarding his statement, I do not believe there physically is a 1700 Elliot Ave W. However, if he claims thats were it happened, and 1700 Elliot is in his jurisdiction, then I am screwed.

Though because 1700 Elliot ave W doesnt exist, is that enough to get the ticket dropped? I understand the court will take the officers word at higher value than mine, but if I testify exactly where he was at (actually 1805 15th Ave W) is the fact that the information in his statement doesnt match where this all took place enough for dismissal?

[Mr. Knowitall]

If there's a 1700 block of Elliot, then the reference would seem adequate.

[blewis]

According to this map view, there is, indeed, a 1700 block of Elliot Ave W, however, it is WAY south of where you claimed this happened.

I just don't know how you prove it.

Barry

[yazoo]

According to this map view, there is, indeed, a 1700 block of Elliot Ave W, however, it is WAY south of where you claimed this happened.

I just don't know how you prove it.

Barry

I think the only reason 1700 Elliot W shows up is because you googled it, then google infered where that might be. Elliot changes into 15th at about the 1500/1600 block.

I bet the officer meant to say the 1700 block of 15th Ave W. Would the fact that he said Elliot on the statement and that address doesnt physically exist be enough for dismissal or would the court just acknowledge the closeness of proximity and find me guilty on a preponderance?

[yazoo]

Just wondering if anyone had any ideas about my above questions?

[adam_]

I think the only reason 1700 Elliot W shows up is because you googled it, then google infered where that might be. Elliot changes into 15th at about the 1500/1600 block.

I bet the officer meant to say the 1700 block of 15th Ave W. Would the fact that he said Elliot on the statement and that address doesnt physically exist be enough for dismissal or would the court just acknowledge the closeness of proximity and find me guilty on a preponderance?

IMO, the court will just say "Officer, did you see him speeding? were you in your jurisdiction?" If he replies Yes and yes, the court will say "Guilty".

You would need to rattle the officer, then get him to identify where he was- on a map or verbally- and then show that whatever location he then identified was outside his jurisdiction. Maybe walk him along with 'so you were in the gravel lot?', get him to agree to that- then point out that the only gravel lot is at 1800? (Just saying)

Even if he was sloppy with prior statements, if he reconciles it the court will probably give him a pass.


A