Ticket for Driving Alone in a HOV Lane

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington


I Received a ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane. I filed for a contested hearing and discovery. I receive the officers testimony. And it states that he saw me driving in a high occupancy lane without any other passengers.

My question is The HOV lane that I was traveling in allows you to pay to drive-in. For him to know whether or not I have a good to go pass He would’ve had to witness me go through a signal that indicates whether or not the pass was scanned. Since he does not state that he had done that, does that mean He did not have justification of hold me over? There’s no way he could’ve known whether or not I have a good to go pass without witnessing me drive under a signal.

Which section of which highway and at what time was the offense?

What makes you think they can't subpoena the "good-to-go" records to find out whether you actually have a pass?

Quote:

---

Quoting joef

---

Which section of which highway and at what time was the offense?

---

167 South during HOV hours.

Quote:

---

Quoting Shadowbunny

---

What makes you think they can't subpoena the "good-to-go" records to find out whether you actually have a pass?

---

They certainly could. In fact, I imagine they would. I never stated that I would lie and say that I did have a good to go pass.

What I did say is that since it’s possible to drive in that lane with a good to go pass, and the officer did not have anyway to know if I had a good to go pass, is it reasonable that he had no way to know that I was committing an infraction therefore not giving him any reason to pull me over.


https://imgur.com/a/UsFooW/


Additionally, the statement by the officer states that I was in lane three of three. It is my understanding that lanes are numbered from left to right meaning that lane three of three would be the right most lane. The rightmost lane on this highway is not a designated HOV lane. Does that matter at all?

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

There’s no way he could’ve known whether or not I have a good to go pass without witnessing me drive under a signal.

---

Sure there's a way. You could have told him and showed him your pass.

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

Additionally, the statement by the officer states that I was in lane three of three. It is my understanding that lanes are numbered from left to right meaning that lane three of three would be the right most lane. The rightmost lane on this highway is not a designated HOV lane. Does that matter at all?

---

No.

Good luck with your defense.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

Sure there's a way. You could have told him and showed him your pass.

Good luck with your defense.

---

Sure - but that would have been after he had already pulled me over. What I’m asking is if he had reason to pull me over given the circumstances?

Thanks for your input.

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

What I’m asking is if he had reason to pull me over given the circumstances?

---

Yes.

A car in the HOV lane with one person in it is reasonable cause for a stop. You won't get anywhere challenging that.

Good to go pass is visibly mounted to windshield so the officer could see it missing before the stop. That would provide reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and verify if you had one.

I assume we're talking the HOT lanes (I-405/SR-167). If not, he doesn't need anything other than a reasonable suspicion you were solo. If it was the HOT lane, JoeF is right.

Since this is Washington State, what you should do is request a contested hearing and get the discovery of the officer's sworn statement. This is what will be the state's case against you. Post it here (personal info redacted) and see what you're facing. The good news is that if there is a defect in probable cause or some other aspect of the case, you can make that point at the hearing and the state won't have a witness to correct or amend (most likely).

Any other conjecture as to what your defense might be is really pointless.

The

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington


I Received a ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane. I filed for a contested hearing and discovery. I receive the officers testimony. And it states that he saw me driving in a high occupancy lane without any other passengers.

My question is The HOV lane that I was traveling in allows you to pay to drive-in. For him to know whether or not I have a good to go pass He would’ve had to witness me go through a signal that indicates whether or not the pass was scanned. Since he does not state that he had done that, does that mean He did not have justification of hold me over? There’s no way he could’ve known whether or not I have a good to go pass without witnessing me drive under a signal.

---

the fact the evidence as it stood proved you were in violation, it allowed the cop to pull you over. While having the pass would have exonerated you, based on reasonable suspicion (facts at hand at the time of the stop), there was nothing improper about the stop.

unless your state specifically states an officer cannot stop based on the reasonable suspicion at hand due to the possibility of the driver might have the special pass, you’re toast.

Quote:

---

Quoting EJay

---

I think the question is whether or not the officer would need to include this testimony in his written declaration. If he omitted this information, he may have failed to establish a prima facie case.

Jacob,

What code were you cited as violating?

---

This is the question I’m asking.


Here is the citation and the officers statement.
https://imgur.com/a/1TvNza9

Again, this was on South 167 where single occupancy is allowed if you have a good to go pass. The officer was never in front of me to see whether or not I had a pass and was next to me and then behind me.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

I assume we're talking the HOT lanes (I-405/SR-167). If not, he doesn't need anything other than a reasonable suspicion you were solo. If it was the HOT lane, JoeF is right.

Since this is Washington State, what you should do is request a contested hearing and get the discovery of the officer's sworn statement. This is what will be the state's case against you. Post it here (personal info redacted) and see what you're facing. The good news is that if there is a defect in probable cause or some other aspect of the case, you can make that point at the hearing and the state won't have a witness to correct or amend (most likely).

Any other conjecture as to what your defense might be is really pointless.

---

I’ve done that and posted above.

I'd argue that in a HOT lane the fact he was a sole occupant is NOT sufficient. He's just as likely to have been driving legally as illegally. This is up there with pulling over a car because the plate search shows the registered owner has a suspended license. Absent some indication the owner is the driver, that's not regarded as sufficient to make the stop.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

I'd argue that in a HOT lane the fact he was a sole occupant is NOT sufficient. He's just as likely to have been driving legally as illegally. This is up there with pulling over a car because the plate search shows the registered owner has a suspended license. Absent some indication the owner is the driver, that's not regarded as sufficient to make the stop.

---

I think this was what I was trying to say.

These lanes have indicator light that signal whether or not the driver has a Good to Go pass. These light up after the driver has driven through one of the toll check points. It’s my understanding that these exist specifically for the purpose of letting police know whether or not the driver has a pass.

Without seeing the absence of a pass or indication of me not having one - I feel as though there wasn’t justification for me to be stopped.

Well, since you don't have such a pass, obviously no indicator light went on. Therefore the officer could not possibly have seen it; there was no indicator evidencing that you were legally in the lane you were a sole occupant in a high occupancy lane; that'a reasonable justification in my book.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Well, since you don't have such a pass, obviously no indicator light went on. Therefore the officer could not possibly have seen it; there was no indicator evidencing that you were legally in the lane you were a sole occupant in a high occupancy lane; that'a reasonable justification in my book.

---

I understood your point, however, I believe the assumption is (without prior knowledge) that a person is not committing a crime until a crime is witnessed.

I apologize in advance if I'm not making sense or proper legal arguments here.

It is my understanding that in order to be pulled over - the officer would need reasonable suspicion that I was committing a traffic infraction.

Without prior knowledge that I did not have a good to go pass - he had no way know whether or not I was committing a violation solely by being in the HOT lane. During the stop, he did not allude to, nor ask, whether I possessed one. He also did not idicate in his testimony that he (a) witnessed the absence of a pass or (b) witnesses an indicator light showing I did or did not have pass.

Considering those facts - I believe the officer had no way of knowing whether or not I was committing an infraction. Thus, he had no reason to stop me.

And I believe that seeing a sole occupant in a high occupancy vehicle, where no indicator light that he was legally able to do so had been lit, he did have a valid reason to stop you.

So there were are.

You have to understand that reasonable suspicion is a very low standard, unlike beyond a reasonable doubt or even probable cause or preponderance of evidence. In my experience, you met the reasonable suspicion test, which does not require the officer to rule out all alternatives before pulling you over. Good luck.

Are you speaking from a personal perspective or a legal one? I definitely accept your point as valid but that does not mean it's legal or admissible.

I believe in your reasoning there's a presumption of guilt.
In mine, a presumption of innocence.

I'm unsure of which could be argued in court. I'd imagine both but obviously [prefer the latter.

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

... I believe the assumption is (without prior knowledge) that a person is not committing a crime until a crime is witnessed.

---

Really, you going to go with that? So if you burgle a house and nobody sees you no crime has been committed?

The problem is that the officer didn't articulate the lack of a GoPass as justification for the stop. Hence based on his sworn statement (which unless something really unusual happens here WILL be all State's evidence), there is NO reasonable, articulated reason for stopping the driver.

Quote:

---

Quoting PayrolGuy

---

Really, you going to go with that? So if you burgle a house and nobody sees you no crime has been committed?

---

I don't believe that scenario falls into the point that I made.

It's been found that evidence gathered from a search/seizure without reasonable suspicion is the fruit of the poisonous tree and inadmissible.

To marry the scenarios let's use this example:

If Peter burgled a house and took the stolen items to his own house to hide them. Officer Jim pulls Peter and cannot articulate why. Officer Jim finds the stolen items in Peter's trunk.

Anything that Officer Jim found in his search would be inadmissible if he couldn't articulate reasonable suspicion for the stop.

Was a crime committed? Yes
Would the evidence of that crime be admissible? Not in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

The problem is that the officer didn't articulate the lack of a GoPass as justification for the stop. Hence based on his sworn statement (which unless something really unusual happens here WILL be all State's evidence), there is NO reasonable, articulated reason for stopping the driver.

---

This is precisely my point. The Officer did not state any reason for the stop beside being a single occupant in an HOT lane. That alone, on this section of the road, does not indicate an infraction being committed. Does that mean the stop was not justified?

No. That does not mean the stop was not justified. It has been explained to you more than once, by multiple people, why not.

It may be an argument to make in court. I think it's a weak argument, myself, but there it is. However, the fact that you were in a high occupancy lane when you were the only occupant is, just by itself, justification for the stop.

You are mistaking legal justification with reasonable doubt. They are not the same thing and the bar is not in the same place.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

No. That does not mean the stop was not justified. It has been explained to you more than once, by multiple people, why not.

It may be an argument to make in court. I think it's a weak argument, myself, but there it is. However, the fact that you were in a high occupancy lane when you were the only occupant is, just by itself, justification for the stop.

You are mistaking legal justification with reasonable doubt. They are not the same thing and the bar is not in the same place.

---

I think there's been a couple points on both sides.

I appreciate your input and thank you for it. I will take under advisement.

I would, however, like to hear from other community members. If that's ok with you...

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

NHowever, the fact that you were in a high occupancy lane when you were the only occupant is, just by itself, justification for the stop.

---

It was not an exclusive HOV lane. If it were, I'd agere, but you CAN legally drive in that lane without passengers.

Quote:

---

You are mistaking legal justification with reasonable doubt. They are not the same thing and the bar is not in the same place.

---

I'm not. The standard is an ARTCULABLE, REASONABLE suspicion. Having a hunch that he doesn't have a GO PASS or not even considering that he is legal, isn't reasonable. As I stated, given the testimony, it's not even the level of "probable cause" here. There's no statistic liklihood a crime has been comitted than not as testified to.

It was my understanding that you'd heard from a great many other members, many of whom agreed with me, and I certainly was not aware that I was preventing anyone from posting.

But I have no wish to offend you with my responses. Since apparently you feel that my response is preventing anyone else from answering, I'll leave you to your own devices and not disturb you further.

Have a good day.

That

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

I'd argue that in a HOT lane the fact he was a sole occupant is NOT sufficient. He's just as likely to have been driving legally as illegally. This is up there with pulling over a car because the plate search shows the registered owner has a suspended license. Absent some indication the owner is the driver, that's not regarded as sufficient to make the stop.

---

that is not always true. If the driver is similar in presentation it does provide reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion does not have to be written on a ticket or report. It must be defended in court if challenged. If not questioned, it becomes irrelevent. If questioned and the cop can articulate RS, defendant loses.

So, let op challenge the stop and see where it goes.

Pay attention to the STATE we are talking about. This is Washington state. That sworn statement is all there will be on the State's behalf in court. The defendant can certainly challenge the lack of anything even approaching a reasonable suspicion. It's like saying that he was pulled over for speeding because he was driving a Ferarri. The defendant will make that point and there will be no articulation by the state's behalf that there was a justification for the illegal siezure. If this was some other state where the officer was present, you'd be right, the office could augment his testimony in stating that he saw the snitch like from the toll collection device or whatever, but that likely won't happen here.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

It was my understanding that you'd heard from a great many other members, many of whom agreed with me, and I certainly was not aware that I was preventing anyone from posting.

But I have no wish to offend you with my responses. Since apparently you feel that my response is preventing anyone else from answering, I'll leave you to your own devices and not disturb you further.

Have a good day.

---

Again, I wouldn’t say a “great many other members” and I wouldn’t say “many” agreed with you.

I think I’ve heard a bit from both sides and would love to continue the discussion.

However, you seem to have made your mind up and said your piece - which I why I’m confused as to why you continue to post the same sentiment.

I understand that you disagree. Thank you for the input.

Well, then, here's a different sentiment for you, and then I'll be on my way.

I have no respect for people like you. People like you are what's wrong with this country. You acknowledge that you were in the high occupancy lane as a single occupant. You acknowledge that you have no pass that would entitle you to be there anyway. By your own admission you were wrong to be there. But instead of taking the consequences of your actions, you're looking for not just a way to wiggle out, but a way to put the blame on someone else. I am sick to death of the self-centered entitlement I see in so many Americans and this is an example of it. No wonder this country has become such a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

Quote:

---

Quoting cbg

---

Well, then, here's a different sentiment for you, and then I'll be on my way.

I have no respect for people like you. People like you are what's wrong with this country. You acknowledge that you were in the high occupancy lane as a single occupant. You acknowledge that you have no pass that would entitle you to be there anyway. By your own admission you were wrong to be there. But instead of taking the consequences of your actions, you're looking for not just a way to wiggle out, but a way to put the blame on someone else. I am sick to death of the self-centered entitlement I see in so many Americans and this is an example of it. No wonder this country has become such a laughing stock to the rest of the world.

---

I assumed based on your implied tone and responses that you felt this way.

I’m sorry that you’re offended. I understand your position and sentiment.

Quote:

---

Quoting jacobx21

---

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington


I Received a ticket for driving alone in the HOV lane. I filed for a contested hearing and discovery. I receive the officers testimony. And it states that he saw me driving in a high occupancy lane without any other passengers.

My question is The HOV lane that I was traveling in allows you to pay to drive-in. For him to know whether or not I have a good to go pass He would’ve had to witness me go through a signal that indicates whether or not the pass was scanned. Since he does not state that he had done that, does that mean He did not have justification of hold me over? There’s no way he could’ve known whether or not I have a good to go pass without witnessing me drive under a signal.

---

Perhaps you could say the cop believed that one may use an HOV lane ONLY if only passengers are in the vehicle. Argue that his false belief was a "mistake of law," since one may also use the HOV lane by possessing a "good to go" pass.

If WA treats "mistake of law" as a 4th Amendment violation, there was not "reasonable suspicion" for the traffic stop.

In Heien v. North Carolina, SCOTUS said a "reasonable mistake of law" did NOT invalidate a traffic stop. But, in that case, a vehicle-code section was written in a "very confusing" manner. In your situation, however, I doubt any ambiguities exist. You can use the HOV lane by either having other people with or by having a pass. Where's any perplexity?