Time For Issue Of A Washington State Park Fine

**dude2** · 02-18-2006, 01:39 PM

Q: Is there a time limit from when a traffic infraction (parking ticket in this case) occurs to when the court or officer has to give you notice of the violation?

BACKGROUND:
I received a parking violation notice at an inner city state park back on Jan 11/06. This was not an official violation notice as perscribed under the local rules but a WA state park cutomized notification envelop asking me to pay the parking fee.

Yesterday (Feb 17th, 06) I received an official violation notice mailed from the court asking me to respond within 15 days regarding the violation. That is over thirty days ago that the infraction occurred.

Thanks,

WA State
King County
Kenmore City

PS. The violation was filed with the correct court on Jan 18th, within the 5 days required for filing.

**Mr. Knowitall** · 02-20-2006, 05:16 AM

So your complaint is not so much about the issuance of the ticket, but the time it took the court to get things rolling once the ticket was filed?

**DaveBis** · 02-24-2006, 09:38 AM

Your Constituional right to a speedy trial attaches at the time you become unequivocably notifed that you will be facing a charge.

That occured when you got the original notice.

The Kanagroo Kourts routinely try to claim that your right to a speedy trial attaches at arraignement, but they are all wrong and published appellate court precedent says so.

**aaron** · 02-24-2006, 09:44 AM

Dave, if you do have relevant authority, please share it. Otherwise, if you want to discuss your opinion of speedy trial rights, please start a separate thread.

**DaveBis** · 02-24-2006, 11:20 AM

Since the issue raised by the poster relates to speedy trial defenses, it woudl seem that my reply was in the correct place. I had wished to assit the poster, not start a new thread. That is why I didn't.

People will have to research their published precedents specific to their State, but for Calif, Barker v Muni Court., and supplementally, Zimmerman v Superior Court, People v Flores.