Can I Be Identified with a Helmet On

[phenixdragon]

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

So a few months ago I received a speeding ticket out of Bothell, WA on my motorcycle. The officer never asked me to take my helmet off so I am wondering if there is a law, or a good argument on that I want the ticket dismissed because he cannot properly identify me from my ID with my helmet on. I mean my face is completely covered. I did give him my ID but my whole argument isn't that I was riding or not, I just want it dismissed because he couldn’t have identified me.

[blewis]

Here's a thread that deals with proper identity. It's not exactly like your case, but it shows you MAY have a shot -- if you get a sympathetic judge.

Barry

[jk]

think of this though;

if you want to argue it was not you;

1.it is obvious it is your motorcycle, yes?
2. did you ever report the bike stolen?
3. if you want to argue it was not you, you will then be required to identify who the driver was.
4. that person will then get a ticket and hate you as well as using a false ID.


So, let's consider the possibility you argue it was not you in another way;

Somebody that was using your motorcycle presented your ID to the officer. Since the bike was not stolen, unless you have filed for a replacement ID, you only have 1 license and that license was presented to the officer. If you now have your license in hand, you apparently know the rider at the time and knowingly allowed the use of your license. To defend possible charges, you are going to have to identify who you did lend your license to. That person may then be charged with presenting a false ID. You may be charged with s couple different crimes.

So, do you want to pay the ticket or chance a legal quagmire that could be much more expensive?

[phenixdragon]

jk, you really don't know how the law works do you? I am not their arguing that the bike is or is not mine. I am not there to argue that it was stolen. I am not to identify who the driver was, which also then includes that person would get a ticket for a false ID.

The bottom line is this jk, I am not saying it wasn't me nor that it was me. It i sjut like when you go to court for a speeding ticket. You don't go and say "I wasn't speeding". You will always loose. You go to court and get a technicality to have it dismissed. Just like yesterday, I went to court about riding my bike to pass cars on the shoulder and the cop gave me a ticket for what is known as lane splitting. Legal in some states but no in WA State. Well the judge through it out even though he wanted me to have the ticket. Why did he? Well the ticket was for lane splitting and I was just riding on the shoulder. There are seperate laws for that and I can't be written a new ticket.

So when I go to court for this I don't have to say it was me or not me. I have the right not to testify. The whole arguement is how did the cop idenitfy someone when they had a helment on? Anyone can give an ID. I mean, it's just like when you get out of bootcamp, everyone looks the same and we use to use other people's ID's to buy alcohol in which the ID was from someone else who was over 21.

I really don't think you understand how the law works.

blewis, I think the thread you show will help. It just makes me think how this could make my case stronger with simple wording like that. I think it will be harder being I'm not an attorney and judges normally make you jump through hoops more. I would like to see if there is an RCW or something that states how an officer is to ID someone.

[jk]

Did you sign the ticket? Case closed.

If you are disputing the fact the officer could not identify you, how do you plan on doing this? You would have to claim to know what helmet the rider was wearing, yes? how would you know this without it actually being you.

Case closed.

how are you going to argue it wasn;t you when you have the ticket and showed up to court?



Do you really think the officer is going to say he can;t ID you? You see, you may claim he couldn;t ID you but if he says he can, you are then stuck with either admitting it was you (and that is all it takes for the ticket to stick) or denying it was you (chancing perjury). If it comes down to your word against his, who do you think the courts will believe? How are you going to prove he could not identify you? and how are you going to do this without testifying?

case closed

You see, when there is a crime with no witnessess, people still go to jail. It requires proving the person charged did commit the crime. It does not mean there had to be an eyewitness. While you may get a wuss judge that accepts your BS arguement, any prosecutor worth his degree will whoop on you and have no problem winning.

as to you winning a ticket yesterday; who cares? It was not this situation. It sounds like you won on a technicality of wrong statute cited. In some states, that is not actually enough to win. A ticket can be amended, in some states. So what? What does that have to do with the argument you propose for this ticket? and to not being able to be written a new ticket? what makes you think that? to defend the ticket written, you would have to admit to what you did do. Are you somehow mistaken that an officer cannot write a ticket after the fact? Dang guy, how do you think camera ticketing works?

best of luck. It would be interesting to be there to watch you lose but I have better things to do. I'm sure, if you come back, you are going to brag how you won the case, regardless of the actual outcome.

[phenixdragon]

Nope, in WA State you don’t sign tickets. We haven’t signed tickets in awhile now.

And what don't you understand? If the ticket has my name on it, well that’s why I am going to court. That doesn't mean it was me or not. Same with parking tickets. I sold a buddy another bike of mine, and he received a parking ticket and it came to me because we aren’t changed the title yet. The whole reason I am in court is I have a court date. But know what? I am not arguing it wasn't me. I am not testifying and don't have to say it was me. I also am not saying it wasn't me, as I am not testifying. There for, there is no perjury. Which then there is no way to be brought up on perjury charges. And if they did, I never lied in court so it would be dropped. I also don't have to answer question by the judge as I am refusing to testify.

And being the cop won't be there, as I am not having him served, the judge can only go by what the ticket says. The ticket doesn't say how I was identified and doesn't mention anything about removing an helmet.

So you really have no idea what you are talking about or how the law works.

To add further to this, I have already talked to my attorney that I normally just handle my tickets and he already has fought tickets like this and he has been able to get them all dropped. Normally officers do not ask you to remove your helmet and he also has argued in court on several cases. Just he won’t help me with the exact details unless I pay. Which is understandable.

And yes, my ticket from yesterday proved a point. Tickets are dropped because of 2 things, either a technicality or lack of evidence. You never win in court by saying “That wasn’t me” or “I didn’t do it”. You will always loose. You only win by technicalities or lack of evidence / suppressing the evidence. Sounds like you never been to court, never seen what attorneys do and see people who don’t use an attorney who try to fight it themselves.

[blewis]

The way I see it, you've got two problems: 1) Your attitude. 2) Unless the officer's statement indicates that the driver of the motorcycle kept his/her helmet on the entire time, there's no way of getting your argument on record without your testimony -- in which case, JK's arguments DO apply. He may not be intimately familiar with WA law, but he's been around for a while, and his advice is generally sound -- and, remember, he did take the time to answer you. So, before you go insulting the folks here, keep in mind that any "advice" you receive here is worth EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE PAID FOR IT!

I'm done,
Barry

[aaron]

How do you imagine that the cross-examination would go?

Q: When you pulled the person over, how did you know who you pulled over?
A: I asked you for your driver's license and registration, and you gave them to me.
Q: But did this person have a helmet on? How could you tell who it was?
A: You looked like your photograph from your driver's license.
Q: But how could you tell, if this person was wearing a helmet?
A: I could see your face.
Q: But if this person had his face covered....
A: Either you lifted your visor or I could see through it, because I could see your face.

* * *

Q: What would you say if I told you that you couldn't see who was riding the motorcycle, and ticketed somebody else?
A: I would tell you that I could see you and didn't ticket somebody else.

You know, assuming no objections.

[cyjeff]

I would also caution against this line of logic from a courtroom novice.

I see just WAY too much opportunity for perjury here. Now, the prosecuting attorney/judge cannot come out and ASK you if you were on the motorcycle (that violates your fifth), but they can ask where you were at the time of the ticket.

Are you willing to trade a traffic ticket for felony perjury?

[aaron]

The Fifth Amendment doesn't let you pick and choose what you answer. You either exercise your right to remain silent, or you take the stand and answer all of the questions. The prosecutor can't force the defendant to take the stand, but if the defendant does so voluntarily the prosecutor most certainly can ask, "Was it you?"