Speeding in School Zone Washington State

[JayVee]

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

Received a ticket for 34 mph in 20 mph High School Zone for $271. The sign assembly included a uniform 20 MPH sign with the hours 7:30am - 3:30pm and blinking yellow light.

What annoyed me about this ticket is that for years, literally, this blinking light has not been synched with school days. It has been blinking on weekends and school holidays. In October of 2009, the Commissioners of Island County changed the law from "when blinking" to "when school in Session". The miinutes of this meeting included a request to synch the lights with school in session.

Now the light does not blink on weekends, but it still blinks on days the school is not in session which means it is incorrect about 20% of the time.

In reading the MUTCD code of 2003 with updates in 2005. The sign placement is with 300ft school crosswalk. Exceptions beyond 300 feet require traffic and engineering investigation and there must be school or playground activity in the area beyond 300 feet to justify the extended placement of sign. Do I understand this correctly?

I have checked with Publics works and they have no traffiic and engineering investigation reports on this area going back to 1990. The 20 mph signs are placed at 400 feet and 800 feet on the other side of the school crosswalk and there is no playground or school activity in the extended area.

I have contested the ticked and requested discovery. Can you give me some guidance on how to present this case in court. What laws should I cite etc?

Should I talk with the prosecuting attornety before the trial?

What I really want to happen is to have these signs placed correctly and the lights synched properly to avoid confusion.

[blewis]

Regulations governing school zones are contained in the WA Administrative Code, specifically WAC 468-95-330 (which requires the engineering survey), -340, and -350.

You may have to subpoena the traffic engineer in order to show that the limits were extended beyond the 300 foot allowance without a proper engineering study -- making the placement of the zone "illegal" and, therefore, not enforceable. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can get that information into evidence -- your WORD may NOT be enough.

I would NOT -- under ANY circumstances -- talk with the prosecutor beforehand. All you will do is reveal your defense, and, believe me, the prosecutor will use that information against you during the hearing.

Barry

[JayVee]

Is there an issue I can bring up in court regarding the Blinking Light on the 20 mph sign being on during days when school is not in session? That is the blinking light not being in sync with "school is in session".

Regarding the phrase "engineering survey" in your response:

WAC 468-95-330 uses the expression "traffic and engineering investigation" while MUTCD 2003 1A.13 item 25 defines the expression Engineering Judgement, no documentation required and item 26 Engineering Study, documentation required. It is not clear to me if investigation requires documentation or not.

Do you know if "investigation" as used in the above WAC require documentation?

[BrendanjKeegan]

The only things I have to say: check to see if school was in session that day. If it wasn't and the light was still blinking, then you have a valid defense. Otherwise your defense is irrelevant.

Before we go into "investigation" and engineering surveys: wait for your discovery request to come back. You may find some other more important details that will be a lot easier than getting into traffic and engineering details. As much as I love law, "if there's an easier way then you should attack in that fashion."

Brendan

[JayVee]

Thank you Blewis and Branden. I will get back when discovery request arrives.

JayVee

[feanor]

I am preparing a defense for tomorrow, and I'm TOTALLY new at it. I wish I'd found this site earlier. We have traffic speed cameras in a school zone in Lake Forest Park. The school zone is over 800 feet from the school, which to me seems to violate RCW 46.61.440. Brian Jones, the WA state program director for school safety zones agrees with me, and during our phone conversation stated the RCW 46.61.440 was designed specifically to prevent school zones from being created anywhere some politician wanted. Thoughts?

I also am using a defense that this zone and camera violate RCW 46. 61. 470 which specifically states that any electronic speed-measuring device must pass with in specified limits which "shall not be closer than one-fourth mile." This devices uses LIDAR to measure speed in 10 feet. It is therefore defined as a speed trap and evidence is inadmissible. Thoughts?

I also have a recent State Supreme Court ruling from AZ where the judge threw out all camera tickets because they violate the 14th amendment to the US constitution. I can post that here if you're interested.

There also seems to be some divide as to whether these camera/devices violate the 6th amendment's right to face your accuser. Are they evidence or accusing? Criminal or civil? Thoughts?

Would love some responses before tomorrow in court, but I realize I'm kinda late for that now.

Sean

[BrendanjKeegan]

The school zone is over 800 feet from the school, which to me seems to violate RCW 46.61.440. Brian Jones, the WA state program director for school safety zones agrees with me, and during our phone conversation stated the RCW 46.61.440 was designed specifically to prevent school zones from being created anywhere some politician wanted. Thoughts?

Sean,

If you use this as a defense then you need to prove that you received the ticket while traveling outside of the three hundred feet defined by RCW 46.61.440(2). Otherwise, it won't stand a chance in court. If you're gonna cite that RCW you should know the proper statute. I just cited it. Use that.

I also am using a defense that this zone and camera violate RCW 46. 61. 470 which specifically states that any electronic speed-measuring device must pass with in specified limits which "shall not be closer than one-fourth mile." This devices uses LIDAR to measure speed in 10 feet. It is therefore defined as a speed trap and evidence is inadmissible. Thoughts?

Again, Reference RCW 46.61.470(3). However, I'm not sure what your point is here.

I also have a recent State Supreme Court ruling from AZ where the judge threw out all camera tickets because they violate the 14th amendment to the US constitution. I can post that here if you're interested.

This case law will not stand a chance in WA court because WA and AZ are two completely separate jurisdictions. However, with that said, if you can find a point in the case that would be beneficial: bring it up. But do not say you got it from an AZ state ruling. It will probably have something to do with wording from the fourteenth amendment. Post the name of the case [State of Arizona v. XXX] and I'll look it up.

There also seems to be some divide as to whether these camera/devices violate the 6th amendment's right to face your accuser. Are they evidence or accusing? Criminal or civil? Thoughts?

Yeah... not gonna work so well. Try it though. You might find out that it works. Just know the exact wording and read it before the court.



Overall, without discovery, your case is very limited and the number of arguments you can use are limited. I have some time tomorrow to answer more questions and look this over, if you want. What time is your hearing tomorrow? Send me an email at brendan.keegan.jr@gmail.com and I'll be sure to respond.

If not, I would love to hear how you did in court.

Best of luck.

Brendan

[JayVee]

In follow up to my 2/26/2010 inquiry.
I received a response to my discovery refquest. It reads:

Please be adv ised that, due to staffing shortages, the Island County Prosecuting Attorney's office does not participate in the prosecution of contested infractions, unless ancillary to a criminal charge. RCW 46.63.080. We have received your request for discovery in a traffice/civil infraction. Please be advised that the Island County Prosecuting Attorney's Office does not have the mataerials that you seek. You may be able to obtain them from the issuing law enforcement agency.

So I have downloaded a request form from the Sheriff's Office. What records should I request to see? What should I focus my defense on?

More specifics: The 20 mph school sign is located 800 feet South of the School crosswalk and about 300 feet beyond any school playground or activities. Based on where the officer's car was parked, his SMD device saw me at about 600 feet South of the crosswalk. His car was located at about 300 feet south of the crosswalk.

My hearing date is April 23rd.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Alright. This one's going to be way to easy. Here's what you do.

Motion to Suppress the Officer's Sworn Statement and cite IRLJ 3.1b. 3.1b reads: "If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or justification, fails to provide the citing officer's sworn statement, the statement shall be suppressed." A staffing shortage is not in any case a reasonable excuse.

After that motion is granted, motion for dismissal because the officer has not provided proof that the SMD he was using was calibrated. In fact, there is no proof that he used an SMD at all. There is also no proof that he filed the ticket (because since one part of the NOI was suppressed, then it was not ALL filed on time) within the 5 days as pursuant to IRLJ 2.2d.

Both of your motions should be granted. Easy case.

Brendan

[feanor]

So, here's a follow-up. I got my cases dismissed.

I learned the magic words from another person in court: "My Notice of Infraction is not certified by the officer under penalty of purjury." Now, they (city of LFP) have since changed the infractions to be certified, so check yours.

Additionally, you can successfully contest it this way, as another person did that day:
I question the accuracy of the speed-measuring equipment, and their IRLJ 6.6 Certificate does not comply with Washington Law.

So, I didn't get to try my other tactics, though I will in a presentation to the LFP city council to pursuade them to replace these stupid machines with a simple stop sign.

The Arizona ruling wouldn't be directly applicable in WA of course, but WA constitution has practically the same wording as AZ, and the judge sites both AZ constitution and US const. You can view the ruling here http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...-arrowhead.pdf

It's funny, during my day in court, the local judge repeatedly brought up that the "traffic" violation and the "parking ticket" that you would (or did) get for the same offense are "completely different" and "apples and oranges." I will certainly quote her in my letter to her (the judge) when I pursuade her to rule in the same way!

Thanks for your help.

Sean