Requesting Discovery for Stop Light Violation Contest

My question involves traffic court in the State of Washington.

I was cited by an officer for "running the red light" as he put it, under RCW 46.64.055. He informed me that the event was recorded with audio and video and our discussion was recorded, as well. I respectfully offered that I did not "run the red light", that my vehicle was into the crosswalk when the light turned red. He attempted to instruct me that the yellow light meant I must stop. I respectfully stated that I was not required to stop on the yellow light and, again, that I was in the intersection when the light turned red and proceeded through so as to clear the intersection.

I intend to request discovery, serving the prosecutor's office and filing a copy with the court, ensuring that I have proof of service and proof of delivery. I will want to examine the video to ensure that, as I believe, I was in the intersection. I see by IRLJ 3.1(b) that the Prosecutor is only required to provide me with video evidence that "the prosecutor proposes to use at trial...." So, my first question is this: 1) How might I compel the prosecutor to produce this video even if he/she might not intend to use it at trial? What if the prosecutor sees that it damages their case? I want access to it. How might I compel that?

The officer appears to have written the ticket correctly except for one error, showing my hair as BLO (blond) instead of BRO (brown). 2) Is that of any merit in looking for possible errors? Or is that too minor to worry about.

Next, I know that I usually try to get my work done early, so that I have time to react to changing circumstances. But since sending in a Discovery Request early gives the adversary more time to respond, would it have any merit to serve and file right near the end of the required time period? 3) Might serving the prosecutor late be a worthy tactic?

Finally, if the prosecutor (or judge) asked for a continuance in court for any reason and I were prepared for trial, I could imagine they might ask for the grounds of my objection. I can state it clearly as a citizen. 4) But what is the foundation for my objection to such a motion?

Thank you for the service you do at this website, allowing individuals to become more involved with the process of the law.

Quote:

---

Quoting anami

---

IRLJ 3.1(b)[/URL] that the Prosecutor is only required to provide me with video evidence that "the prosecutor proposes to use at trial...."
e any merit to serve and file right near the end of the required time period? 3) Might serving the prosecutor late be a worthy tactic?

---

I would disagree ... you have the right to conduct an investigation and that can include almost anything ... read IRLJ section on discovery again ... ask for the video from police & DA under color of an investigation. If they do not comply, file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with court rules.

So you can ask the officer questions (just not in a deposition, which is discovery) and perform any non-discovery activities.

Go to the police agency and ask them about their policies for reviewing or obtaining a copy of the video. If the police department declines access, and upon being informed of that the prosecutor won't assist, bring a motion before the traffic court.

1.) A Freedom of Information Act request, or a public records request under RCW 42.56. If it's denied, you need to go to court to argue why the court should compel production. That part is fairly easy, "Your honor, I have reason to believe that the prosecution is withholding exculpatory evidence and I do believe that the prosecution is required to release any evidence they have that could prove my innocence."

2.) Too minor.

3.) Indeed.

4.) "Your honor, the state should not have charged this case if they were not ready to bring it to trial. The defendant is here and ready to proceed with trial. This is a waste of the court's time and the citizen's tax dollars. I ask you to dismiss the case unless the prosecution is ready for trial."

If not granted: "Your honor, I would like my objection noted and would also like to state for the record that I do not waive my rights to a speedy hearing."

Thank you both (Mr. KnowItAll and BrendanJKeegan).

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

1.) A Freedom of Information Act request, or a public records request under RCW 42.56. If it's denied, you need to go to court to argue why the court should compel production. That part is fairly easy, "Your honor, I have reason to believe that the prosecution is withholding exculpatory evidence and I do believe that the prosecution is required to release any evidence they have that could prove my innocence."

2.) Too minor.

3.) Indeed.

4.) "Your honor, the state should not have charged this case if they were not ready to bring it to trial. The defendant is here and ready to proceed with trial. This is a waste of the court's time and the citizen's tax dollars. I ask you to dismiss the case unless the prosecution is ready for trial."

If not granted: "Your honor, I would like my objection noted and would also like to state for the record that I do not waive my rights to a speedy hearing."

---

That's very good. Nice. :)

I don't know Wash. Here I could just serve the DA with a request for documents under discovery rules. (audio and videos are considered "documents" for that purpose.) If I didn't get them, I could use all of your arguments and again, nice job. They are good.

Okay, another error in the original ticket. Please let me know if this is minor or might be exploited.

At the top, the officer had a choice to check X DISTRICT or  MUNICIPAL COURT OF TUKWILA. He checked X DISTRICT.
Immediately beneath the X DISTRICT, it shows these choices to check:
 STATE OF WASHINGTON and to the side of this first line... ", PLAINTIFF VS. NAMED DEFENDANT"
 COUNTY OF KING
X CITY/TOWN OF TUKWILA

So, that means that the plaintiff is the "CITY OF TUKWILA" and is to be tried in the "DISTRICT COURT OF TUKWILA".

But, at the bottom, the defendant is directed to respond to the court checked below, and there are two choices:
X TUKWILA MUNICIPAL COURT (checked by officer)
(address, phone circled by officer below)

 KING COUNTY DISTRICT COURT SOUTH DIVISION (not checked)
(address, phone not circled)

This is contradictory, could be construed as confusing. My gut instinct is that it is still minor. Correct?

Well, you could file a motion for dismissal, stating that the District Court lacks jurisdiction. That motion should be sustained. Then the officer could write and serve you with a corrected ticket and if she did, you'd be back to square one.

However, if the officer chose not to write a new and corrected ticket, you'd be off the hook.

I'd have to decide if I wanted to appear "troublesome" and risk annoying the court while at the same time perhaps getting a permanent dismissal.

I believe if it was me I'd file the motion for dismissal. Be sure to google motions and get it all right. You have to serve the court and file it with the court, and attach proof of service. Here is a sample motion:

http://www.northwestregisteredagent....o-dismiss.html

You don't need to attach a memorandum. There is plenty of room right there to simply state that the District court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction.

The words "with prejudice" mean essentially that it's a final dismissal and can't be brought against you again.

I would file that with the District Court (address it to them) since that's the court which your are summoned to. I would serve a copy on both the municipal and the district courts. That way you are asking the district court to agree it lacks jurisdiction, and you're answering the complaint to the municipal court via your motion. No one could argue that you weren't timely.

Be sure to attach copies of the ticket with your motion and mention in the motion that it's attached. The courts need to see what your argument is.

Edit: Instead of the name of an attorney, you use your own name followed by "pro se" as in John Doe, pro se.

Quote:

---

Quoting cmre3456

---

Well, you could file a motion for dismissal, stating that the District Court lacks jurisdiction. That motion should be sustained. Then the officer could write and serve you with a corrected ticket and if she did, you'd be back to square one.

However, if the officer chose not to write a new and corrected ticket, you'd be off the hook.

I'd have to decide if I wanted to appear "troublesome" and risk annoying the court while at the same time perhaps getting a permanent dismissal.

I believe if it was me I'd file the motion for dismissal. Be sure to google motions and get it all right. You have to serve the court and file it with the court, and attach proof of service. Here is a sample motion:

http://www.northwestregisteredagent....o-dismiss.html

You don't need to attach a memorandum. There is plenty of room right there to simply state that the District court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction.

The words "with prejudice" mean essentially that it's a final dismissal and can't be brought against you again.

I would file that with the District Court (address it to them) since that's the court which your are summoned to. I would serve a copy on both the municipal and the district courts. That way you are asking the district court to agree it lacks jurisdiction, and you're answering the complaint to the municipal court via your motion. No one could argue that you weren't timely.

Be sure to attach copies of the ticket with your motion and mention in the motion that it's attached. The courts need to see what your argument is.

Edit: Instead of the name of an attorney, you use your own name followed by "pro se" as in John Doe, pro se.

---

This is SO WRONG on so many levels. CMRE3456, I have mentioned to you before that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. You don't know WA laws, WA Court Rules, or, apparently, even simple court procedures.

OP, I'm NOT going to waste my time trying to "fix" CMRE's post. Instead, I'll just say that for traffic infractions -- BOTH the District Court AND Municipal Court have jurisdiction. Whichever court the NOI was filed in -- whether Municipal or District -- DOES have jurisdiction -- see IRJL 2.3 (... an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district OR the municipality where the infraction occurred.) and RCW 46.63.040 (1) and (2).

When you send in the NOI requesting a contested hearing, you will receive a "hearing notice" from one of these courts. What do you plan to do, go in and argue that THAT court doesn't have jurisdiction? Or send your motion to the OTHER court to argue that THEY don't have jurisdiction. Your only hope of a "venue" dismissal is to prove the infraction occurred in a different place than the one noted on your NOI.

If you were to make a written motion, proper procedure REQUIRES you to SERVE the PROSECUTING AUTHORITY, and FILE a copy with the court. CMRE's statement, "You have to serve the court and file it with the court" is TOTAL NONSENSE! Listen to CMRE if you want, but, if I were you, I'd ignore EVERYTHING he/she says.

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting BrendanjKeegan

---

1.) A Freedom of Information Act request, or a public records request under RCW 42.56. If it's denied, you need to go to court to argue why the court should compel production. That part is fairly easy, "Your honor, I have reason to believe that the prosecution is withholding exculpatory evidence and I do believe that the prosecution is required to release any evidence they have that could prove my innocence."

---

A FOIA request denied requires an administrative review and then an admin review case to be filed in court...traffic courts will likely just shrug their shoulders at such a denial. But asking to see it during an investigation is different because it is part of the traffic court practice rules in which a dismissal could be requested due to a refusal to comply with a court rule.

One could ask via FOIA, it would not hurt .. its also possible that a FOIA request is properly denied when a pending case is before a court; to avoid end-rounding discovery rules. OP should check this out...many states have this FOIA exemption.

Why people are afraid of conducting investigations when clearly they are allowed puzzles me.

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!