Defenses Against a False Pacing Ticket

If there isn't an inter-local agreement as JoJo stated, you just need to walk in and make a motion to dismiss per IRLJ 2.2 and 2.3 before they read it in or swear you in. FMC does not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the NOI clearly states that the infraction was in Kent but that it is being filed in Federal Way. I would still prepare other motions but you really seem to have lucked out here.

Quote:

---

Quoting MoMoney

---

If there isn't an inter-local agreement as JoJo stated, you just need to walk in and make a motion to dismiss per IRLJ 2.2 and 2.3 before they read it in or swear you in. FMC does not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the NOI clearly states that the infraction was in Kent but that it is being filed in Federal Way. I would still prepare other motions but you really seem to have lucked out here.

---

If you do ^^that^^, you will lose. The NOI clearly states that the infraction occurred in Federal Way, while the officer's statement states that the infraction took place BOTH in Federal Way AND Kent, since 272nd is the dividing line. Therefore, Federal Way Municipal DOES have jurisdiction -- so does Kent (as well as King County District Court). The wrinkle comes from the combination of IRLJ 2.3 and RCW 10.93.070, as I outlined in my previous post. Since the NOI was filed in Federal Way, IRLJ 2.3 requires that the infraction had to have taken place in Federal Way. However, the Kent officer did not have jurisdiction in Federal Way, unless there was an interlocal agreement in place pursuant to the ruling in King.

Quote:

---

Quoting MoMoney

---

FMC does not have jurisdiction to hear the case as the NOI clearly states that the infraction was in Kent but that it is being filed in Federal Way.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo

---

The NOI clearly states that the infraction occurred in Federal Way, while the officer's statement states that the infraction took place BOTH in Federal Way AND Kent, since 272nd is the dividing line.

---

I don't see any indication that it says the infraction was in Kent, as I read the narrative it seems like he claims he paced me in Federal Way then he says I slowed (stopped) at the red light and proceeded when it turned green at which point there is no mention of continuing the infraction or any indication I did anything against the law as high revving (2,200RPM) is not against the law as far as I know.

Quote:

---

Quoting jojo

---

The wrinkle comes from the combination of IRLJ 2.3 and RCW 10.93.070, as I outlined in my previous post. Since the NOI was filed in Federal Way, IRLJ 2.3 requires that the infraction had to have taken place in Federal Way. However, the Kent officer did not have jurisdiction in Federal Way, unless there was an interlocal agreement in place pursuant to the ruling in King.

---

I agree with this part of it that since this alleged infraction took place in Federal Way outside of his jurisdiction that pursuant to IRLJ 2.3 and RCW 10.93.070 I should be able to get a dismissal unless the prosecution can come up with how this was a case of “fresh pursuit” which is the part I am concerned about and do not entirely understand as it mentions “who is reasonably believed to have committed a violation of traffic or criminal laws” but in order for this to be used I believe he would have had to be going from Kent into Federal Way and not from Federal Way into Kent, and I think this may only apply to arrests?

~Spike~

You're right - Read the wrong box w/ respect to the city, improper venue won't hold. Filing an FOIA won't hurt, but you can also look it up online for federal way since they actually keep their contracts online (don't know about Kent). If you can find a contract on the Federal Way site, you'll know well in advance of an FOIA response if there is an agreement that affects your case or not.

I only found the Valley Special Response Team and the Valley Civil Disturbence Unit as well as the interlocal jail agreement which mention Kent PD and none of these would seem to apply to my case. It is strange how almost every other city in King county has an interlocal agreement posted publicly but not Kent. Oh well though at least public records are easier and cheaper to obtain than Federal Way.

~Spike~

The jail agreement isn't relevant. But if they're still party to the VSR and VCDU agreements, that gives their personnel the right to operate in member municipalities. The officer explicitly states that he was on an assigned patrol in Federal Way (he mentions streets in Federal Way as being where he was assigned for that patrol).

I'd try and pick apart at the actual contracts (see the duration of the contracts and if they're still valid - what operational rights it gives to the members), but doesn't look like a jurisdiction violation will be a cake-walk based on what you found.

Well the court date is finally coming up (almost four months after the alleged infraction not quite the speedy trial I have come to expect).

I have confirmed that the speedometer was never calibrated so I figure that should be pretty slam dunk.
http://imageshack.us/a/img829/3430/bbto.png

On the other hand, I would kind of like to test the application of dismissal based on the jurisdictional argument of IRLJ 2.3 and RCW 10.93.070 as according to the record search there is no inter-local agreement between Kent and Federal Way.
http://imageshack.us/a/img819/7195/joxp.png

However, reading through some of the other threads previously I am worried that the judge may not appreciate my trying to use unorthodox technical arguments and may not accept a dismissal using either motion if I annoy them too much with the inter-local agreement motion. Should I just play it safe and use the lack of speedometer calibration to get a dismissal or could I proceed with the lack of an inter-local agreement argument and appeal the decision if the judge denies both motions to dismiss? I don't mind going to appeals just as long as there is a decent chance I will win.

~Spike~

Stupidest thing I heard today ended up being from a judge and was "your making legal arguments so we'll have to schedule you for a date that the prosecutor can hear." Isn't that what a contested hearing is for?

I never agreed to waive my right to a speedy trial and since the date of the alleged infraction was on 4/8/2014 and the attorney calendar is set for August 8th or 122 days after April 8th (despite the Court Clerk claiming it was just within the time frame). So now I guess I have to file an objection to the date by the 29th so it is within the 10 days required by IRLJ 2.6(d)? Should I do this like filing a discovery request?
http://oi61.tinypic.com/2pphus0.jpg

~Spike~

Well finally had my last hearing today, finally won. I spent 2.5 hours waiting for the 90+ cases with attorney representation (I was the only Pro Se). It seemed like the prosecutor was about ready to fight me on my motion to dismiss for exceeding the 120 day right to a speedy trial but after the usual spiel from the Judge about my three options to mitigate, defer, or contest...right when I was about to say I choose to contest it the City Prosecutor finally read through the officer's statement and agreed to motion to dismiss for evidentiary reasons.

Thank you all for your help. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to start a thread here.

~Spike~

Congrats!