Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington, Whitman County District Court in Pullman, WA. Presiding Judge would be John Hart.
I read Barry's sticky thread on this topic, but WA state prosecution has updated their boilerplate forms (both infraction and officer's SMD affidavit) to fix many, if not all of the loopholes mentioned in the sticky. Out of naivety and taking friends' advise, I subpoenaed the ticketing officer. After researching online, I found out that it's a bad idea. Too late, the subpoena has already taken flight from the court clerk's office. I'm now lost on how to defend my case during the contested hearing. Please help.
My story goes like this:
Had a car problem with transmission mount and serpentine belt tensioner. Makes a high-pitched screeching noise when driving between speeds 20-70. To avoid producing much noise, I instinctively started driving lower than 20 in cities and higher than 70 on highways. Until one day, WA state trooper tickets me for going 71 on a 55 highway (SR 270). I've been driving for 3+ years and this is my first ticket and I want to get rid of it. Contesting the hearing to keep the ticket off my driving record. However, can't find any major loopholes. Some minor ones: a) officer's SMD affidavit states weather was clear but in fact it was overcast (can show proof from weather websites), b) officer noted my car is red color but in fact it is maroon; and c) the officer ticketed me for 190$ whereas IRLJ 6.2 clearly states that the max charge for 16 above limit (in 40+ category) is 78$. Served/filed for discovery. Also, going to observe the court and the judge on Oct 15th to get to know the environment.
At this point, if discovery is delivered in time and if the officer shows up, I'm thinking of going for a 'necessity defense'. That is, try to argue that I sped to avoid harm to myself and others. Another nooby mistake I committed was telling the officer at the time of citing that I was sorry for speeding and it was because I had car problems. I offered to show the noise problem to the officer but he didn't care. However, he didn't record the convo on the SMD affidavit either. So if the officer does show up, I gonna cross exam him and try to get him to recall the convo, which I could use a witness for my necessity due to car problems defense. I have receipts for transmission mount repair and serpentine belt repair which could also be evidence of my defense.
Idea #1 - I asked the Court Clerk for SMD certification and they said it's online. I did find it online and everything's up to date regarding certification. However, if discovery doesn't provide me with the SMD certification (I did not ask for it), can I informally ask the prosecution to show SMD certification proof during my trial? If they fail to show or ask for a continuance, can I move to dismiss? What if they ask for continuance and the judge grants it?
Idea #2 (very bad idea) - Attack officer's ability to discern and record info due to the minor mistakes he committed with filing the infraction, as given above. Attack him further by asking him to repeat the RADAR calibration process and if he fails to or makes mistake in repeating, argue that the officer lied on a sworn statement and move to disregard the affidavit as inaccurate. I don't want to do this, but if this has a good chance of getting me out clean...maybe?
Any other ideas or suggestions? Maybe tips on how I could prove prejudice? Am I not seeing something? I have a feeling that I'll lose my case, best might be reduced ticket fees. The hearing is in 3 weeks.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
You've shot yourself in the foot pretty thoroughly. There is no necessity defense here. If your car was in such poor shape that you had to speed to avoid harm to yourself or others, the proper course of action is to get it fixed before taking it out on the road. The officer will testify regarding your statements during the stop, further torpedoing your case.
None of your minor things are going to get you anywhere. The weather and color of your car are to an extent subjective, especially when neither is a factor in your infraction. The $190 likely includes court costs and other add-ons above the legally mandated $78.
Your best bet, since you subpoenaed the officer, is to try speaking to the prosecutor before trial to see if they are willing to cut a deal with you to amend it to something non-moving. Bringing proof you fixed the car would probably help your case.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
If your car was in such poor shape that you had to speed to avoid harm to yourself or others, the proper course of action is to get it fixed before taking it out on the road. The officer will testify regarding your statements during the stop, further torpedoing your case.
Can I perhaps word it so that it sounds like the problem arose while I was driving and that I read about such problems online and knew what to do in this case? I doubt the officer will remember my statements word to word.
Does Whitman County's prosecutor do pre-trial deals? Whom should I contact about that?
Thanks for taking time in providing your insight.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting
ticketnoob
Can I perhaps word it so that it sounds like the problem arose while I was driving and that I read about such problems online and knew what to do in this case? I doubt the officer will remember my statements word to word.
Two things. First, this tells me you are willing to lie to try to avoid the ticket. Not a good look regarding your personal integrity. It is also the crime of perjury. I do not recommend this approach.
Second, it wouldn't help you. There is still no necessity defense. That noise simply make your car irritating to drive at most speeds. If it truly made your car dangerous to drive at those speeds, the remedy is not to speed to make the noise go away (which may not end up making the car safer, btw). Driving over the speed limit is also considered unsafe. If you cannot operate the car safely at within the posted speed limit your remedy is to pull over and get the car towed to have it repaired.
You were speeding. You may have to suck it up and take the penalty for your violation.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
For required items on a ticket, look at IRLJ 2.1. The little things won’t matter nor will the necessity defense. For the correct fine, you need to look at the Washington State Bail Schedule which includes all fees. On page 52, “SPEEDING 16 MPH OVER LIMIT (OVER 40)” is listed as $187.
If you want to observe the court, be sure to go when attorneys representing infraction cases are present. If you attend a session only with defendants representing themselves, you won’t learn anything about technical defenses involving the calibration certificate, or the officer’s sworn statement you will receive with discovery. If you want help reviewing discovery, upload digital photos or scans (with your personal id and citation number redacted) to any free image hosting site and link them here in your thread.
However for the most part I agree with free9man that with the officer present you will probably end up needing to make a deal or ask for a deferred finding. You can ask a clerk if a prosecutor will be present at your hearing. If so you can arrive early and speak to him/her a few minutes before.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
...this tells me you are willing to lie to try to avoid the ticket...
I would never lie in a court of law, just brainstorming hypothetical ideas for academic purposes :P
Thanks for your insight though, appreciate it.
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
...If so you can arrive early and speak to him/her a few minutes before.
I'll post the redacted discovery materials once I get them. And yes, I checked through IRLJ 2.1 required items. They're all there in my NOI form. Thanks a lot for the resourceful reply, especially the tip about bail schedule and asking clerk about prosecutor.
Edit - I can't help but laugh out loud at that schedule. It says the penalty for going 1 mph over speed limit is $105. Good going Washington state law, good going.
Obtained discovery in 2 days of sending the request.
Officer's Affidavit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y0V...ew?usp=sharing
Certification(?): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1exV...ew?usp=sharing
Ticket: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bh5...ew?usp=sharing
The response letter from prosecutor for my discovery request also states that the prosecutor's office will not negotiate any infractions. I guess that seals my fate...
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Obtained discovery request in 2 days.
Officer's Affidavit: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y0V...ew?usp=sharing
Certification(?): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1exV...ew?usp=sharing
Ticket: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bh5...ew?usp=sharing
Additionally, the response letter to my discovery request says that the prosecutor will not negotiate any infractions. I guess this means that I don't have much chance for negotiating a move to non-traffic violation.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
I’m posting on behalf of ticketnoob, because for whatever reason the last few months this forum has had a problem where some new members are being cut off from posting to their own threads. Due to that issue I’m going to quote follow-up information from PM’s to me that he wants in his thread.
Based on what you said previously, I’m assuming you’ve gone to court today to observe, and that your hearing is at least a week from now. Have you asked a clerk whether it’s possible to rescind your subpoena of the officer? If so I would do that.
One thing that I find interesting on the officer’s report is that he appears to state conflicting facts. In one place he states that you were “Passing a vehicle that was at 60 mph” then later states “I did not see the defendant pass any other vehicle.” Those two statements are mutually exclusive and could be used to question reliability of his sworn written statement and/or subsequent testimony, as those statements are part of his visual estimate and justification for obtaining the radar reading.
I would make a preliminary motion to exclude or suppress the speed reading based on those conflicting statements.
As for the radar calibration certificate, the officer simply states, “my certifications are on file with the WSP.” First they are not HIS certifications as he is not an expert, and second he is not making it easy for you to look up that certification. Washington State Patrol has a website for certificates, but the certificate cannot be found on that site by using his 6 character unit id. You would need to play around with variations of the supplied id in order to view the cert. I would make a preliminary motion to suppress or exclude the speed reading because the certificate is not available on the WSP site using the officer’s unit id.
Furthermore it could be argued that per IRLJ 6.6(d) the cert should be filed at the court. I would check to see if a copy is indeed filed by going early to the hearing or visiting the court anytime prior. If it is not filed I would make a preliminary motion to suppress or exclude the speed reading due to noncompliance with the last sentence of IRLJ 6.6.
Yet another issue is the penalty on your ticket—listed as $190. There is not a single offense on the entire 102 page Washington State bail schedule with a fine of $190. Your fine should be $187, and initially I thought that you were just rounding it up. IRLJ 2.1(a) states that “Notice of Infraction forms prescribed or approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts are presumed valid and shall not be deemed insufficient by reason of defects or imperfections which do not prejudice substantial rights of the defendant.” I would make a preliminary motion for dismissal arguing that the higher fine amount prejudices substantial rights.
You should announce that you have motions immediately when your case is called, before the officer’s statement is read into the record and before you are sworn in for testimony. If any motion to suppress or exclude is granted, then move for dismissal.
Ultimately it’s your call whether to contest or request a deferred finding and depends on how big a priority it is to keep the ticket off of your record. If you do not rescind the subpoena then of course you can move for dismissal if the officer doesn’t show. You can also ask the judge if he/she can hold your option for a deferred finding pending outcome of preliminary motions. If the judge is willing to do that then you have a free ride on the motions.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
@ticketnoob was likely blocked because the Google Drive links needed to be checked for a Jr. Member.
Did you check them, searcher?
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
He had a previous post which was deleted and contained no links at all. Also I’ve seen others blocked who were not posting links. Yes I checked them and my response is based on that content.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Ok, I can post on this thread again.
searcher99, can you please send me a quote of my follow-up so that I can edit my post? Or you may want to post my follow up on this thread directly. Thanks.
And since my earlier response to Taxing Matters got deleted, I will post it again:
Quote:
Quoting
Taxing Matters
Two things...
Thank you for your insights, I appreciate your time. I would never lie in a court of law. I was brainstorming hypothetical ideas for academic reasons.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting ticketnoob
Quote:
Quoting searcher99
...If you would like to PM me with whatever content you want in your thread, I’ll try to put it there for you...
Thanks a lot, searcher99. I read your reply on my thread. Very insightful reply, I hadn't considered those possibilities for suppressing the RADAR reading and for prejudice. Thank you.
I observed the court's traffic docket today. Judge seems to be very helpful, tried his best to educate defendants of their rights, without advocating for them. The next traffic docket is on the 29th, which is when I'm scheduled to appear before the judge. I did learn today that Whitman District Court allows moving infractions to be amended to non-moving for an admin fee of $250, if you have no such prior amendments on your file.
At this point in time, my strategy is to-
If the officer shows up:
STEP 1: Ask the judge if he would allow me to preserve my deferral/amendment options until I obtain the results of my preliminary motions. Either way, go to STEP 2.
STEP 2: Try searcher99's preliminary motions. If anyone of them is granted, move to dismiss. If none of my motions are granted, suck up and defer/amend/pay.
If the officer doesn't show up:
Since I've rescinded my subpoena, I can't move to dismiss officer's report per IRLJ 3.1(a). The strategy remains the same as if the officer shows up.
What do you think of my sequence, searcher99 et al.?
Thanks a lot for your time, folks.
Quote:
Quoting ticketnoob
Also, I just noticed this: my height is listed on the ticket as 5'1", whereas my height (as listed on the driver's license) is 5'10". Is this a detail that merits dismissal of the ticket?
Thanks again.
The moderation changes are new and a bit confusing to me, but anyway I’ll do my best.
From what you are saying it sounds like no prosecutor is present at these hearings and you are willing to risk losing. Probably the amendment option is only available before preliminary motions, so that’s something you will need to consider especially if you see the officer. If the officer is present the odds are likely against you, but if motions are denied you can try to cross examine him about his conflicting written statements.
I doubt the typo about your height will matter, but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in IRLJ 2.2(d).
Edit: However it always seems ludicrous to me that anyone can amend to an unrelated non-moving violation although they seem to have no problem doing it.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
...but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in
IRLJ 2.2(d)...
Is there a rule/law that I can use to show the judge that the ticket amount cannot be higher than what is prescribed in the JIS Law Table (Washington Bail Schedule)? Can I use IRLJ 6.2(a)?
Thanks.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
I still can't post a reply with links. Any post containing links is being sent for moderator's approval. Apologies for not adding links to the relevant laws in my follow-up below.
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
...but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in IRLJ 2.2...
Is there a rule/law that I can use to let the judge know that the ticket amount can't be more than $187 in my case? Should I use IRLJ 6.2(a) or should I just state that the ticket charges more than what is specified in the Washington State Bail Schedule? Thanks!
Edit: Never mind, figured out that the higher ticket preliminary motion should argued on the grounds of prejudice of substantial rights and subsequent noncompliance with IRLJ 3.1(d) and IRLJ 2.1(a).
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Since it's not yet your scheduled court date, I shall reply only to say good luck, and that I can personally attest to Searcher and Taxing Matters reliability and assistance in these issues (and surely others)
They, along with some other kind folks helped me navigate though my 1st (and last) speeding ticket, where I went up against the prosecution (Tukwila, WA) and WON.
It seems that WA may have managed to close the loophole in which I won with (SMD radar calibration checking) so I hope that your court date goes smoothly.
A few tips from experience...
Write your notes CLEARLY.
Breathe.
Do not interrupt the judge. (yes, self explanatory... But still lol. You'll be surprised at how nerves can screw you!!)
Lastly, PLEASE return here and share the results... Most people do not... And I can attest to the appreciation of those helping you, when you give a modicum of information on how things went.
Good luck!!!
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Court report:
The officer did not show up and I contested with the strategy that I laid out earlier in this thread and lost. After I made my motions, the judge took a "recess" and vanished for 30 mins. He said he was researching IRLJ 6.6 (d), but I doubt that took him 30 minutes. My theory is that he was contacting the officer and/or reading this forum. Due to small town nature of Pullman, I reckon that the judge likely knows the citing officer. The judge's behavior changed completely towards me after he returned from his "recess". Whereas in cases before mine, he allowed defendants to use their deferral even after a finding of committed, he was not budging in my case. Such selective application of rules is a remarkable quality that can be seen in small towns.
The Whitman district court in Pullman has a highly informal traffic docket.
I was expecting the process to be:
--> Judge considers my first motion and makes a ruling on it. I make subsequent motions later one by one sequentially.
Actual process was:
--> When I told the Judge that I had preliminary motions, he asked me to list them all. He took some notes and then vanished into his 30 minute "recess".
Results for my motions were (you can check out my motions in previous posts):
First: he didn't think the contradicting statements in my case had any effect on the fact that I was speeding or not. I tried to argue that the statements undermined the statement's credibility, but he didn't entertain the argument.
Second: he didn't think the certificates were hard to search and told me that he found them online.
Third: he found no prejudice in $187 vs $190. My final committed amount is $190 as well, he didn't even reduce it to $187 as a show of gesture to my attempt at contesting.
End of report.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Thank you for your detailed report. It’s true that some courts especially in small towns are less inclined to consider preliminary defenses that focus on technical defects. That’s why it’s really a good idea to listen in on defense attorneys representing infraction cases. If they are only doing deals and deferrals, then you have a strong clue that it’s a difficult court.
The fact that the judge took a 30 minute recess at least indicates that you made compelling arguments that he couldn’t just roll over without careful consideration. You can appeal to Superior Court, but that’s expensive in terms of both time and money so would not be an option unless you really wanted to take it on as a project.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Thank you all for your help, especially searcher99. I had a lot of fun working on my case, didn't feel so excited for anything in the last decade. I heavily considered bailing out via deferral or amendment to non-moving, but what's the thrill in that? Haha.
I would have liked to elevate this to Superior Court (SCourt), but Whitman county's SCourt doesn't hold a trial for appeals of infraction cases. The SCourt will only review the record that is provided by the district court. I don't see a point in spending $386 just to have SCourt review the materials without a trial. And I'm positive that the SCourt judge is a friend of the district court judge and would likely rule against me.
It was fun while it lasted. Hopefully, I don't get another traffic ticket, but if I do, I know how to play the game now :-P
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Quote:
Quoting
searcher99
The fact that the judge took a 30 minute recess at least indicates that you made compelling arguments that he couldn’t just roll over without careful consideration.
Or it meant the judge needed to poo.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
Ticketnoob, I am sorry you lost. The issue of attacking the officer's credibility in WA is that the standard for conviction of a traffic ticket is only preponderance of the evidence. You would have to have demonstrated that the inconsistencies in the officer's statement were so egregious that almost nothing he stated was believable. Casting doubt is not enough. The fact that the officer took the time to stop you and issue a ticket indicates that he believed you were speeding is a lot of evidence to overcome which is why most wins are on technical grounds, not "here is why I believe the officer got this wrong". Obviously he believed it was more likely that you were speeding than not and found you guilty even with the issues with the statement.
Re: Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270
I would have to at least somewhat disagree with the above, because for most WA speeding tickets preponderance is largely irrelevant. Preponderance is only applicable to a finding of “committed” or “not committed” after a hearing of evidence. A successful speed ticket defense usually involves preliminary (before evidence is heard) suppression of the speed measuring device evidence due to insufficiency of required elements such as certification, testing, tracking history or visual estimate. Those situations will result in NO finding based on weight of evidence, but rather a simple dismissal without prejudice--meaning theoretically the case could be re-filed but actually that never happens.
If the SMD evidence is suppressed, dismissal due to lack of evidence is automatic. Tracking history and a visual estimate are required as a prerequisite to using the SMD, because in Washington State a visual estimate alone is usually not sufficient. In ticketnoob’s case the officer attests to him “Passing a vehicle that was at 60 mph” then later “I did not see the defendant pass any other vehicle.” These statements clearly relate to the visual estimate and tracking history, which if deemed insufficient could result in exclusion or suppression of the radar reading and dismissal due to lack of evidence.
Although this particular judge did decide that the tracking history and visual estimate were admissible, it’s possible that a higher court could find that he erred in that conclusion. However since the radar evidence was deemed admissible, the end result was preponderance and a finding of “committed”.