Ticket for a Broken Brake Light

[armyguydan123]

I was pulled over last night in Washington State for a broken brake light. Problem is on driver/passenger side there are 2 brake lights and turn signal lights, so if one goes out im still not "illegal". I was acually already out of my car and approching my house door when the police officer pulled in my driver way. But here is the thing, he didnt give me a ticket for that, he gave me a ticket for no insurance. The police officer also sighned my ticket signature box and told me that he wouldn't be ticketing me for the brake light or the License plate light that he saw after he had me turn on my lights so he could show me which light was out. My question is with a working brake light i was not illegal, so isn't the demanding of license, registration and proof of insurance an illegal stop? Ohh yea, he never asked me for my signature he just sighned COP, game to above. Isn't that the only way they have proof that i recieved the ticket also?

[seniorjudge]

Sounds like a good stop to me.

[jk]

typically a state requires that all lights installed at the factory work. This would mean that you in fact did have an inoperable brake light.

although the light output may have been adequate to meet the states requirements, that becomes moot since the requirement is to have all factory insalled lights in operating order.

since he did have the right to pull you over, he obviously did have the right to write the subsequent ticket.

good luck fighting the "I never recieved the ticket" arguemnt. If you are hauled into court, which is what would happen eventually, and they ask you if on such and such a date in so and so place, did this officer (as he is staring you down) in fact give you a ticket for such and such violations.

At that moment you have two choices;

tell the truth

lie (BTW this is always a bad choice)

if you tell the truth, you then get asked why you failed to remedy the ticket.

if you lie, the officer is going to take the stand and testify, along with notes, logs, and dispatch confirmation that he was in fact stopping you and taking care of business.

So now, although you are such a believable guy, the courts find it just too dificult to overlook the actual evidence the officer has shown and testimony given.

You now not only have to deal with the ticket but you are now open to perjury charges, as well several other charges.

Now how do you want to play the "I didn't get the ticket" game?

[armyguydan123]

I am going to respond to the ticket. The way i understood the law was a working brake light, dosnt have to be factory. ANd why, if it was a legal stop did he not give me a fix it ticket like he is suppost to due, since i had not one but 2 lights that were not working?

[jk]

I am going to respond to the ticket. The way i understood the law was a working brake light, dosnt have to be factory.

I haven't looked up (nor do I actually intend to) the actual requirements of your state but take note that most states do require that all factory installed lighting is operable.

If you want to fight it, I would suggest looking up the actual legal requirements before going that direction. If you are right, go for it. If you're wrong, bend over like you want it.

and he is not required to give you a ticket for anything. It becomes officer discretion based upon the circumstances.

[blewis]

Lighting requirements in WA state seem to be governed by two statutes: RCW 46.37.070 and RCW 46.37.200 (license plate light is required under RCW 46.37.050). There is NO requirement for all "factory-installed" lights to be operational that I can find.

Since June, officers are NOT required to get an offender's signature on a traffic citation in WA state. So that argument won't lead anywhere.

The only question is: Did the officer have "probable cause" to believe that you committed a traffic infraction? Note that the officer does not have to issue a citation for the original infraction (the one that created the probable cause) in order to cite a more egregious offense.

You would have to argue -- successfully -- that your taillights do, indeed, meet the statutory requirements (although, with your license plate light out, that's going to be difficult). Since the license plate light being out is probable cause, the only argument remaining would have to be that this was a pretextual stop. That is, that the officer was using a valid traffic stop as a pretext for investigating some other suspected crime. For example, if he/she suspected you were carrying drugs or weapons or whatever. Pretextual stops violate Const Art. 1, Section 7. (See STATE v. DESANTIAGO, 97 Wn. App. 446 (1999)).

That's about all the "legal" stuff I can find. Good luck,
Barry

[jk]

(1) Any vehicle may be equipped and when required under this chapter shall be equipped with a stop lamp or lamps on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red or amber light, or any shade of color between red and amber, visible from a distance of not less than one hundred feet and on any vehicle manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1964, three hundred feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and which shall be actuated upon application of a service brake, and which may but need not be incorporated with one or more other rear lamps.

Do your lights fulfill those requirements when one of the lamps is not working? Good luck proing it and that the officer believes they do as well. ALthough they may, if the officer believed they did not conform to state requirements, his stop is justified. They get to be wrong as long as they were believed they were correct.

along with Barry, I also could find no requirement to maintian standard equipment although I did see reference to a vehicle inspection law. If there is one and the requirements to pass that inspection are that all OE lights function, although it is not specifically included within the statutes, you are going to have a very hard time fighting it.

[blewis]

I did see reference to a vehicle inspection law. If there is one and the requirements to pass that inspection are that all OE lights function, although it is not specifically included within the statutes, you are going to have a very hard time fighting it.

Passenger vehicles only have to pass emission inspection. Vehicle inspection in WA state only applies to commercial vehicles.

And I still think the license plate light being out creates enough probable cause -- even though the officer may not have noticed it at first, you would have to get HIM/HER to say that.

I think you've got an uphill battle. You'd probably be better off getting the required insurance, paying the fine, and getting on with your life. But that's just my opinion. On the other hand, there's no additional penalty for fighting a ticket in WA. You've really got nothing to lose.

Barry

[cdwjava]

the only argument remaining would have to be that this was a pretextual stop. That is, that the officer was using a valid traffic stop as a pretext for investigating some other suspected crime. For example, if he/she suspected you were carrying drugs or weapons or whatever. Pretextual stops violate Const Art. 1, Section 7. (See STATE v. DESANTIAGO, 97 Wn. App. 446 (1999)).

Interesting. The USSC has said in Whren and other cases that such pretextual stops are legal so long as the underlying offense justifying the stop is valid. So, you're saying that WA holds their officers to an even higher standard? That must make for a great many challenges in traffic court ... I'd hate to be working traffic in a minority neighborhood in WA if this is indeed the standard!

Fortunately, CA law permits us to hold to the federal standard instead of our stricter state standards which, if not held to the federal standard, would likely be held the same as WA's.

Interesting.

- Carl

[blewis]

I'm sorry, I should have specified that the DeSantiago case refers to the WA State Constitution, which is, indeed, a little more strict than the Federal one. But, yes, that's a fairly new case (1999), and I found it cited in cases as recent as 2004. Next time I go to the law library, I'll Shepardize it to be sure it hasn't been overturned recently, but I highly doubt it.

But, if you read DeSantiago, the distinction between the Federal and State constitutions is pretty clear.

We evaluate the constitutional validity of this stop by the requirements of article I, section 7, of our state constitution, not the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 979 P.2d 833 (1999). In Ladson, the court held article I, section 7, of the state constitution has broader application than does the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In City of Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wn.2d 454, [457], 755 P.2d 775 (1988), article I, section 7, was interpreted independently of the Fourth Amendment in the context of the same legal issue which is present in this case, namely warrantless stops of automobiles for the purpose of investigation. Id. at 348 (citations omitted). A pretextual traffic stop violates article I, section 7, because it is a warrantless seizure. Id. at 358.

The Ladson court noted a fundamental difference between the detention of a citizen for the purpose of discovering evidence of crimes and a community caretaking stop aimed at enforcing the traffic code. Id. at 358 n.10. The essence of a pretextual traffic stop is that the police stop a citizen, not to enforce the traffic code, but to investigate suspicions unrelated to driving. Id. at 351. Here, as in Ladson, "[t]he question [is] whether the fact that someone has committed a traffic offense, such as failing to signal or eating while driving, justifies a warrantless seizure which would not otherwise be permitted absent that 'authority of law' represented by a warrant." Id. at 352. Ladson clearly answers that question: "Article I, section 7, forbids use of pretext as a justification for a warrantless search or seizure because our constitution requires we look beyond the formal justification for the stop to the actual one." Id. at 353.

Yep, it's very interesting.
Barry