ExpertLaw.com Forums

Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Ticket

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next LastLast
  • 02-08-2018, 02:46 PM
    DirtyDozen
    Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Ticket
    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

    This is for Kent, Washington. I received a violation for speeding in a school zone, as caught by a camera posted in the zone. The car is registered in my name, but I was not driving it at the time. A family member was using it to pick up my kids from school and wasn't familiar with the route, or the school zone w/camera. They realized they were in the school zone too late and were braking to slow down (brake lights are on in the photo), but the camera already took the photo before they could slow enough.

    Since I was not operating the vehicle at the time, I was going to fill out the Declaration of Non-Responsibility. I'm not sure whether I should Mitigate or Contest the violation. I also don't want to have to appear in court, so wanted to request the hearing by mail. I don't want to have to name my relative, nor do I want to hit them with this big ticket fine ($248!) since they were helping out with the kids.

    Any advice for getting this dismissed or reduced would be very much appreciated. Thank you!
  • 02-11-2018, 09:33 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    If you don't want to appear in court or absorb the financial hit, file the declaration of non-responsibility.

    Tickets for speeding in a school zone cannot ordinarily be deferred.
  • 02-11-2018, 11:51 PM
    DirtyDozen
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    Thank you for your reply, I appreciate your time.

    So on the form would I mark the following box?

    [] In the care, custody or control of another person who cannot be identified or will not accept responsibility (this means that
    the registered owner must request a hearing and defend this infraction),

    And then file a Contested Hearing by Mail? Or a Mitigation Hearing by Mail?

    This is the form I have to fill out:
    https://www.kentwa.gov/home/showdocument?id=1063

    Thanks again.
  • 02-12-2018, 10:01 AM
    searcher99
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    The correct check box is NOT listed--which is “the vehicle involved was, at the time in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.” That is exactly what the law requires as the ONLY way to overcome the presumption. If you make the statement as worded in the form, it will not be a proper rebuttal and will not overcome the presumption. In that case you will be presumed responsible and will need to pay or appear in court.

    Quote:

    Quoting RCW 46.63.075(2)
    This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.

    What should be the correct choice is included in the first sentence in the city’s “Declaration of Non-Responsibility” form, which is the ONLY way the presumption may be overcome—period. The city’s form appears to be an attempt to trick you. Read it carefully. It does not have any options for you to properly overcome the presumption. Essentially they are modifying the actual wording of the RCW stated above, and attempting to get you to sign a modified statement putting you under their control. They have substituted the phrase “another person who cannot be identified or will not accept responsibility” in place of the phrase “some person other than the registered owner”. “Some” means “unspecified” implying you are not required to specify the person in your statement. Also the word “only” precludes any other requirements or obligations on your part.

    The form states that “The judge is not required to accept your assertion that you were not the driver.” That might be correct IF you assert that you were not the driver--but the law’s exact wording requires you to assert that “the vehicle involved was, at the time in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.” The law refers to “care, custody and control” and does NOT refer to anyone “driving” the car.

    I would not accept the city’s proposed wording. I would send my own written statement, under oath, using the exact wording of the rebuttal given in the statute. A sample template can be found on the non-profit site BanCams.com. Also I would get my signature notarized (usually free at your bank), send certified with the certified mail number written on the top of the affidavit, and request a return receipt--although probably none of that is required but I would do it to be safe. The worst that can happen is that they schedule a hearing, at which I would make the exact same statement.

    One more thing--this is not a situation where you mitigate or contest. Rather you rebut with a properly executed written statement.
  • 02-12-2018, 12:02 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    If you choose to concoct your own form, rather than using the official form, you may find that the judge disagrees with searcher99's personal belief about what the statute requires. If judges in Kent County are accepting that interpretation of the statute, I would like to see that fact documented; otherwise such a personal interpretation can create problems for a person who ends up having to go to court or whose statement is deemed inadequate to deny responsibility.
  • 02-12-2018, 03:25 PM
    BrendanjKeegan
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    Quote:

    Quoting searcher99
    View Post
    One more thing--this is not a situation where you mitigate or contest. Rather you rebut with a properly executed written statement.

    Disagree. I wouldn't go through the effort of making your own form. Just fill out their form and request a contested hearing.

    At the hearing I would refer to the statute and share this interpretation, which is not against how most legal scholars in the state are interpreting this statute.

    If you are found to have committed the infraction, you'll have a case in which 2 or 3 attorneys would love to handle an appeal pro bono. Send me a DM if this happens.
  • 02-13-2018, 03:19 PM
    DirtyDozen
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    Thank you all for your consideration and feedback, it is much appreciated. I find myself somewhat conflicted about how to proceed. As I mentioned, avoiding a hearing or court of any kind is definitely preferred. I was originally under the impression we would be able to send in a form stating we weren't driving and that would be the end of it. But the City of Kent's form throws a big wrench into it. It sounds like you all agree their form is designed specifically to avoid us being able to simply state this fact and be done with it. My worry is that the city or judge will take issue with us not using their form, and make a much bigger deal out of this as a result. Is that a possibility?
  • 02-13-2018, 03:34 PM
    PayrolGuy
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    If the county has gone to the trouble of creating a form I would think there is a very good chance the judge will take issue with you not using it.
  • 02-13-2018, 04:48 PM
    BrendanjKeegan
    Re: Mitigating, Contesting, or Declaring Non-Responsibility for a Camera Speeding Tic
    ^Affirmative.

    So you've got yourself three conditions to work with in this situation:

    1) Pay the fine.
    2) Implicate the driver.
    3) Go to court and argue that their form is outside the scope of the RCW.

    In the last condition, you'll probably find the judge doesn't want to deal with it and will let you declare non-responsibility in person.

    In any event, you're going to have to choose your own adventure.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved