Requesting Discovery for Stop Light Violation Contest

If I read it right, the officer chose District Court to handle the summons, and then noted in the city of Tukwila. Next he required the defendant to respond to the Tukwila Municipal Court.

If I read it right, I see a flat out contradiction, giving neither court jurisdiction because I can't tell which court the defendant is ordered into. I see that as the officer's fault.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't even see where there is a District Court in Tukwila. The OP said above, "So, that means that the plaintiff is the "CITY OF TUKWILA" and is to be tried in the "DISTRICT COURT OF TUKWILA".

If I'm reading it right, I don't see where the citing officer gave either court jurisdiction.

We aren't always going to get it right and that includes everyone. Do we have to be rude too? I just posted in another thread that I believe an infraction in Calif. isn't a crime in what I consider to be a learning experience for one or several of us. Even if I'm wrong, I sure hope I wasn't rude.

Thank you.

Speaking in broad terms, does the court have personal jurisdiction? If the traffic occurred within the court's jurisdiction, yes.
Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? If the court has jurisdiction to handle tickets of this type, and the defendant was served with legally sufficient notice of the court proceeding, yes.

Service does not appear to be in question, nor does subject matter jurisdiction - the issue is whether the ticket served on the defendant gives adequate notice.

The broad question - general legal concepts, I'm not presently delving into the minutia of Washington State law - becomes, was the defendant served with a sufficient notice of where the ticket was pending, such that he could appear and defend. If not, and the defendant defaults, the improper notice can be used to try to have the default set aside. If so, and the defendant appears and defends, the defect in the notice would seem harmless. One way or the other it's a minor clerical error and, even assuming the court found that proper notice was not given, it's very difficult to believe that a court would grant a dismissal with prejudice.

Very good. I agree.

Now, if the defendant appears and defends, it would seem to me that the defendant would be waiving any argument about jurisdiction.

If on the other hand, the defendant filed a motion for dismissal due to at least two conflicts in jurisdiction on the face of the citation, I believe (but could as always be wrong) that the District Court would need to rule on that. I believe there's a reasonable chance that the court would agree, and from what I can see from here, I'd try that. I really don't see what I'd have to lose if I served notice to both courts as my answer.

I've already mentioned that I once got a ticket dismissed simply because the officer put PM instead of AM on the time of day. PM was almost midnight and I was home asleep with my family.

Heck, I'm not an attorney. I'd just give it a shot.

Thanks for the respectful response.

Thanks for the hearty debate, Mr. KnowItAll, BLewis and cmre3456. I went to the Police department today and turned in their city form requesting public records. I asked for all recordings (audio and video) associated with the police officer (with his badge number) starting with 20 minutes before the ticket and lasting for one hour. If the response adheres to the request, it might even show any distraction leading up the the stop and any informal mutterings after the fact. It just seemed like a good idea at the time.

I will answer the court (both courts) before midnight Friday and will consider serving a motion asking which court has jurisdiction or something else. I'm still looking for the right motion to consider. Thanks so much for the support and input. I'm happy to hear both ideas and counter-ideas which yields a healthy debate!