Fail to Stop at a Stop Sign in Federal Way, but Intersection Has Stop Line 15 Feet

[gogodawgs]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington

My daughter received an infraction ticket for "FAIL TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN" (46.61.200) in the City of Federal Way. She did not commit the infraction and we are hoping for some assistance in developing a defense. She has received discovery which she is posting here today. I am also posting the google map of the intersection as well.

I believe the defense will focus around the fact that the stop line is a good 12-15 feet back from the stop sign and another 5 feet from the intersection. The officer states that he had a clear view of the 'intersection' but fails to mention that he had a clear view of the stop line, which is where she came to a complete stop. Because of obstructions to drivers to the left of the intersection drivers then must creep forward to the stop sign and then to the intersection as well to turn right safely.

Any thoughts and assistance on this will be of great help. The trial is next Friday.



http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...02146&t=h&z=20

MAP

[blewis]

I see what you mean that the stop sign on 18 is fairly far back from the intersection. However, the officer said, "I observed the defendant driving westbound on SW 325th St." In order for this to be the intersection, your daughter would have had to be travelling "southbound on 18th". Instead, I think it may have been this intersection, a little way down the road. This sign and stop line look to be pretty well placed.

Be that as it may, however, the officer did NOT specify his/her exact location. I've seen others beat stop sign tickets on that very basis. After all, how can you present a defense without knowing the officer's exact location. The officer simply claims to be positioned with a clear view of the intersection, however, if you look at the intersection from this view, for example, you can see that if you were a little closer to the right hand side, those trees would partially block your view of that stop sign.

Plus, Google Maps says that this is the corner of SW 325th PLACE and 18th PLACE SW. The officer claimed that the infraction took place at SW 325th STREET and 18th AVENUE SW. Check the actual street signs, you may be able to claim that there is NO SUCH INTERSECTION.

BTW, why did you post this in the "speeding" section?

Barry

[gogodawgs]

Thanks Barry,

We went out and took a few pics of both intersections as well as the signs for both intersections and clearly the intersection listed in the officers statement does not exist. So she will have these arguments:

1) Your honor... after reviewing the officers signed affidavit I noticed that the intersection in question simply does not exist in the city of Federal Way. I have brought you the google and mapquest maps of the area in question as well as some pictures of the surrounding area and there is no "intersection of SW 325 ST/ 18 AVE SW in Federal Way, WA". Therefore the officer could not possibly have an unobstructed view. I move to dismiss.

2) Your honor... The officer states on his affidavit that he had a "clear and unobstructed view" of the intersection, yet fails to list his exact location. I have brought a few pictures of the intersection in which you clearly do not have a clear and unobstructed view of the stop sign and stop line. I contend the officer could not see the sign and line because it was obstructed and move to dismiss.

[blewis]

Personally, I would NOT take pictures or maps of the area with me. I would simply state that there is NO such intersection. The judge will have a computer. He/she can use Google Maps and try to locate that intersection. If the judge says that the officer obviously meant 18th Pl and 325th Pl, I would state that there is no possible way for the court to "know" what the officer really meant. The only thing the court can "know" is what the officer SAID. Furthermore, the officer signed -- under penalty of perjury -- attesting to the veracity of the contents. How can it be shown that it is "more likely than not" that I committed an infraction, when the location of the alleged infraction does not exist? But, of course, your daughter must do what she's comfortable with. I'd advise taking her to a few court sessions, just so she can get a "feel" for the place.

Barry

[gogodawgs]

Thanks Barry.

[gogodawgs]

Why present and/or bring no pictures or maps? What is the theory behind that approach.

[blewis]

If you bring a picture like the one above showing 18th Ave and 325th Place, the judge will see that there is, indeed, an intersection and that the officer's typo was simply that -- a typo -- and find your daughter guilty. You'll have proven the existence of the intersection and IRLJ 3.1 (d) states:

(d) Sufficiency.

No notice of infraction shall be deemed insufficient ... by reason of defects, imperfections or omissions which do not tend to prejudice substantial rights of the defendant.

The judge may find her guilty anyway, but, personally, I'd let the judge figure it out, rather than prove the case against myself.

Barry

[gogodawgs]

Update:

She went to court today with these 3 arguments. (Her judge was Larson)

Your honor…after reviewing the officers signed affidavit I noticed that the intersection does not exist in the city of Federal Way. I move to dismiss.

Your honor... The officer states in his affidavit that he had a "clear and unobstructed view" of the intersection, yet fails to list his exact location. Without an exact location I have no way to defend myself. It is possible to have a clear and unobstructed view of a ‘intersection’ yet NOT have a clear and unobstructed view of a stop sign and stop line. The failure of the officer to state his exact location prevents my defense and I contend the officer could not see a stop sign and stop line because it was obstructed and move to dismiss.

Your honor… The officer states…westbound, yet there is no stop sign or stop line at 18th Ave SW when traveling westbound.


The judge then stated that these were all not reasons to dismiss as the officer/city still has a prima facie case against her. He asked if she had any evidence showing an obstruction. (I forgot to bring the photos) Therefore, she got a continuance and she will have photos of the intersection showing that the stop sign and stop line are obstructed from view.

What I don't get is that he said the officer/city showed that she had committed the infraction somewhere in Federal Way, even though the exact intersection is in question. Therefore, a picture of any obstructed intersection in Federal Way would suffice as evidence.... weird.

The actual intersection (s) in question have an obstructed view of the stop sign and stop line as they are both set back from the intersection. We witnessed the Hon. Judge Larson dismiss an older gentleman's failure to stop infraction who simply brought a picture of the obstructed corner of the intersection.

[blewis]

Since the intersection shown on the citation does NOT exist, I think the only picture you need is this shot from Google Maps, showing that there is NO STOP SIGN at the intersection that's CLOSE in name (one street is correct, the other is not).

I really want to know how you can have a prima facie case against someone, when the place you say they committed the offense doesn't even exist. To me, that's like saying, basically, if an officer says you ran a stop sign, that's all that's needed. Date, place, time, etc. don't matter. You're guilty! I don't get it.

Good job getting the continuance.

Barry

[gogodawgs]

Since the intersection shown on the citation does NOT exist, I think the only picture you need is this shot from Google Maps, showing that there is NO STOP SIGN at the intersection that's CLOSE in name (one street is correct, the other is not).

I really want to know how you can have a prima facie case against someone, when the place you say they committed the offense doesn't even exist. To me, that's like saying, basically, if an officer says you ran a stop sign, that's all that's needed. Date, place, time, etc. don't matter. You're guilty! I don't get it.

Good job getting the continuance.

Barry

I completely agree. My thoughts are that I could show any intersection in the city of federal way with some bushes obstructing the view of the stop sign and the judge would have to throw it out.