Washington State Speeding in a School Zone

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington

I was ticketed for speeding in a school zone (RCW 46.61.440) a few blocks from my house. I think the signs are new (the school was just built) because I never noticed them, and even going back to look for them it wasn't easy to spot them because they are in the middle of the block where I'm not looking for signage. There's also a van parked under the one that would be facing me that doesn't obscure it but definitely makes it hard to notice. My question is, what are the rules on signage posting? RCW 46.61.440 says something to the effect of proper signage posting but I can't find out what the rules are.

Basically, I think it's a crock. It's a small sign, not in a very noticeable place and it was not a time of day when kids were about (but the sign does apparently specify all day 7am-5pm). And, I was right behind 2 other cars and probably only got tagged because I was the easiest to pull over... right in front of my house.

My 2nd problem, it that I have no money. I got a seatbelt ticket about a year ago (also a crock) and was able to do community service, but 46.61.440 says something about not being able to defer the penalty. Really, I've got nothing. Haven't been able to find work in 3 years and am fully supported by family. What do I do when I can't pay?

The ticket is one of those new printed out kind, don't know if that hurts my overall chances of finding errors in documentation, but I'm thinking it does.

Wow, I just logged on here to post a thread about a speeding ticket in a school zone in WA!

Karstedt, I hope you don't mind if I piggyback onto your thread- we need similar advice and similar questions answered(A school zone ticket may NOT be deferred?) so maybe this will help us both. :cool:




In regards to my particular ticket- I was ticketed for doing 25mph in a 20mph school zone, the officer used an SMD Laser to measure my speed. After receiving my discovery the 3 possible defenses I see are-


#1- I filed for discovery 15 days before my trial(which is this Friday June 5th) and received the discovery on May 30th- I'm wondering if they count the actual court date(June 5th) as one of the 7 days "before" the trial? Or would Thursday June 4th technically be the last day before my trial date-thus making the discovery a day late?

If in fact the court didn't send me my discovery paperwork within the "7 day before the trial" time period I'm wondering if that's enough to get my case dismissed. Seems a little shaky, especially when I read this from IRLJ 3.1-

If the prosecuting authority provides the citing
officer's sworn statement less than 7 days before the hearing but not later
than one day before the hearing, the citing officer's sworn statement shall be
suppressed only upon a showing of prejudice in the presentation of the
defendant's case.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly, but I read that as though even if the court didn't get my discovery to me within the 7 days they'll still use the officers statements unless I show prejudice? Frankly, I don't even understand what/how to "show prejudice" against myself(the defendant). If I asked that the officers statement be suppressed simply because I didn't get them on time would the judge go for it?

#2-

My actual ticket states I was speeding at 25mph in a 20mph school zone.

Yet the officers say I was speeding at 31mph in the 20mph school zone.

I'm sure the officer might've "knocked down" my speed when he wrote the ticket as a nice gesture, but would this discrepancy between the actual ticket and his notes be enough to get the case thrown out?

#3- Thirdly, at no time on the actual ticket or in the officers notes does he indicate the distance between his laser and my car. In his notes the officer writes "I observed the defendant approaching my location in excess of the posted 20mph active school zone limit". "my location" is the only reference to a distance in any of the paperwork I've gotten.

If he's using a Laser SMD isn't he required to state the distance between the SMD and the vehicle it's tracking?


Sorry for the lengthy post, but any help is greatly appreciated!

There's so much going on here!

Yeah, you'll have to show not only that the discovery didn't make it to you in the time allowed, but also that you were "prejudiced" by its absence. Apparently, they don't seem to think that knowing the factual elements alleged against you are important enough, which is greater proof that the 6th Amendment specifically, and the constitution generally are of no help in many court cases of this type.

Anyway, essentially you'll want to show some reason why this materially affects how you'd have proceeded. The rub is that you can't even argue how it would be different if you still don't have discoverable materials inasmuch as you lack any idea what's being alleged.

The distance bit isn't just a nicety the officer puts down. It's required because the lines of sight, angles of approach and the like are intimately tied to peoples' locations at the instant of recording.

I don't know that it would be enough in and of itself to get the case thrown out, but it surely does bring into the question the officer's attention to detail. Your best strategy here might not be any individual mistake; rather, the aggregrate sum of them all. No distance, wrong speed, blah blah.

To the first poster, it's a bit curious that in all of your interactions with the law, you're but an unlucky person maligned by the fates. It could be that you need to carefully examine are your unlawful conduct. Soon.

That said, it's not going to do to argue that you couldn't have known about the sign because you think it's new. You'll have to prove it's new, and very new. Probably so new that it's the first time you've ventured through there.

All signs in Washington are presumed to conform to all regulatory requirements unless and until it can be demonstrated otherwise. So, if you're going to argue that the signs aren't conforming to that which is required, you'll have to go out and measure.

That you were in a huddle of other cars speeding isn't a good idea to raise in a trial because it admits in passing what you're denying in your argument: that you were speeding, too. It isn't selective enforcement so much as a practical limitation: precisely how many people could you stop all at the same time?

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

All signs in Washington are presumed to conform to all regulatory requirements unless and until it can be demonstrated otherwise. So, if you're going to argue that the signs aren't conforming to that which is required, you'll have to go out and measure.

---

So how do I demonstrate that the sign doesn't meet regulatory requirement? Is it simply a matter of distance? Is there no definition of constitutes a clearly visible sign? Any rules regarding proper placement other than just distance? Where can I find the sign posting regulations?

As for my other run in with the whole seatbelt thing... I was not unlucky at all. As long as I can defer the penalty to community service, I will continue to completely disregard the seatbelt law. I am happy to do community service if the court deems my lack of seatbelt usage a threat to the community.

Quote:

---

Quoting Karstedt

---

So how do I demonstrate that the sign doesn't meet regulatory requirement? Is it simply a matter of distance? Is there no definition of constitutes a clearly visible sign? Any rules regarding proper placement other than just distance? Where can I find the sign posting regulations?

As for my other run in with the whole seatbelt thing... I was not unlucky at all. As long as I can defer the penalty to community service, I will continue to completely disregard the seatbelt law. I am happy to do community service if the court deems my lack of seatbelt usage a threat to the community.

---

You can find the relevant standards here.

You are free, of course, to continually choose not to wear your seatbelt, but you'll find that this will become increasingly less favorable to you. For instance, you can't indefinitely defer such a ticket, nor will you indefinitely be able to do community service.

That exactly what I was looking for. I actually had to grab another section of that manual to find all the posting requirements. I think the sign violates the posting on two counts. One, it's on a telephone pole and not it's own post. And Two, I think it's only 5ft up, and it should be 7ft due to the cars parking there. I'll have to go out and measure to be sure though.

As for community service. Can the fine for school zone speeding be done by community service? Or does the nature of the specific fine rule that out? What happens when you can't pay a fine and they won't give you community service?

Quote:

---

Quoting Karstedt

---

That exactly what I was looking for. I actually had to grab another section of that manual to find all the posting requirements. I think the sign violates the posting on two counts. One, it's on a telephone pole and not it's own post. And Two, I think it's only 5ft up, and it should be 7ft due to the cars parking there. I'll have to go out and measure to be sure though.

As for community service. Can the fine for school zone speeding be done by community service? Or does the nature of the specific fine rule that out? What happens when you can't pay a fine and they won't give you community service?

---

Well, that's between you and the court. But you aren't eligible for a deferment on that charge because it's a school zone. It's either you'll defeat the charge or be found guilty; there's no out here. Our law specifically excludes speeding in school zones from being eligible for the deferred prosecution deal.

As far as the sign being out of bounds and what not, you'll have to get out there and measure it to see if it conforms to the legal requirements governing all signs of that type. The section I linked to you was the section that I thought most relevant to your situation. But there may well be other sections which directly bear on it, so do research around in it and learn all you can.

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Our law specifically excludes speeding in school zones from being eligible for the deferred prosecution deal.

---

I agree, but, Ashman, tell me what you think of this argument. RCW 46.61.440 states:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.61.440

---

(3) A person found to have committed any infraction relating to speed restrictions within a school or playground speed zone shall be assessed a monetary penalty equal to twice the penalty assessed under RCW 46.63.110. This penalty may not be waived, reduced, or suspended.

---

Just as you said. However, take a look at IRLJ 3.3, which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ 3.3

---

(e) Disposition. If the court determines that the infraction has been committed, it may assess a monetary penalty against the defendant. The monetary penalty assessed may not exceed the monetary penalty provided for the infraction by law. The court may waive or suspend a portion of the monetary penalty, or provide for time payments, or in lieu of monetary payment provide for the performance of community restitution as provided by law.

---

These two provisions seem to be in conflict, since the RCW says you "MAY NOT" waive, reduce or suspend the penalty, while the IRLJ says you "MAY".

The tie breaker, as it were, seems to be in IRLJ 1.1, which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting IRLJ 1.1

---

(c) Effect of Other Law. These rules supersede all conflicting rules and statutes covering procedure for infractions unless a rule indicates a statute or rule controls. Provisions of statute or rule not inconsistent with these rules shall remain in effect.

---

Since the rule (IRLJ 3.3 (e)) DOES NOT indicate that RCW 46.61.440 controls, then the court SHOULD be able to reduce, suspend, or waive the penalty -- which would include a deferral.

So, what do you think? Is there something I'm overlooking? Or am I reading these incorrectly?

Barry

Quote:

---

Quoting blewis

---

I agree, but, Ashman, tell me what you think of this argument. RCW 46.61.440 states:Just as you said. However, take a look at IRLJ 3.3, which states:
These two provisions seem to be in conflict, since the RCW says you "MAY NOT" waive, reduce or suspend the penalty, while the IRLJ says you "MAY".

The tie breaker, as it were, seems to be in IRLJ 1.1, which states:Since the rule (IRLJ 3.3 (e)) DOES NOT indicate that RCW 46.61.440 controls, then the court SHOULD be able to reduce, suspend, or waive the penalty -- which would include a deferral.

So, what do you think? Is there something I'm overlooking? Or am I reading these incorrectly?

Barry

---

If only the left hand paid attention to the right hand when drafting legislation, huh?

My understanding is that even though the local rules are issued pursuant to state law, they aren't themselves a state law. They're the decisions of the judiciary how to proceed as an administrative matter, which is entitled to some deference. But when there's black letter law in conflict, the courts are obliged to follow it instead of their local rules.

Of course, I've seen the appellate courts here do some tricky legal gymnastics before, so I'd be unsurprised if a commissioner couldn't do either and get away with it being perfectly acceptable.

I don't think rule 1.1 really decides it. Sure it says it's supreme, but that claim doesn't make it so. What would they have the legislature do? Write into each law that "this supersedes all non-laws in the State notwithstanding their claims of supremacy."?

I think the tone of the supreme court here, for at least a couple of years, is to defer to statutory construction as being superior to rules of court. But it's usually not so clear a case that the statute says one thing, the rules of court say another; it's usually to do with some local court practice (which also is allowed for by statute: local courts may make whatever rules they think necessary so long as they conform to the IRLJ and state law). When state law and the IRLJ are in conflict, what to do? Pick a point on the horizon, steer towards and pray for good weather!

I think what would happen is this: no one's going to touch the issue because if the state law is violated, then the defendants are winning by having reduced charges. Are they really going to argue for a greater penalty? If the IRLJ is to be believed, then a judge could simply argue that while he believes he has the right under the IRLJ to waive a penalty, he doesn't read it to require him to do so. So, in his discretion in the instant case, a waiver wasn't warranted because of _____. I doubt we'll see this one blazing a trail through either the legislature or appellate court divisions.

Divisions 1 and 2, I think, would side with state law, while division 3 would side with the IRLJ. I can't substantiate that with a litany of case law because each division has judges which do things the rest of the division doesn't agree with, but that's my gut feeling on it - if it ever even gets brought up.

Perhaps you could go get a ticket and then throw up a test balloon? Then we'll have the definitive answer! I commend you on your quest to be make the judiciary a better place!

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

Perhaps you could go get a ticket and then throw up a test balloon? Then we'll have the definitive answer!

---

I don't think I'm will to go to that extent! But thanks for the suggestion....

I did find this:

Quote:

---

Quoting City of Spokane v. Ward, 122 Wn. App. 40 (2004)

---

When a statute and a court rule are in apparent conflict, we must harmonize the provisions whenever possible and interpret them so as to give effect to both provisions. City of Kirkland v. Ellis , 82 Wn. App. 819 , 826, 920 P.2d 206 (1996). In those cases when a conflict is irreconcilable, however, "the nature of the right at issue determines whether the statute or court rule controls." In re Marriage of Leslie , 90 Wn. App. 796 , 806, 954 P.2d 330 (1998). If the right is substantive, the statute prevails; if the right is procedural, the court rule prevails. Id . Generally, "[s]ubstantive law prescribes norms for societal conduct" and "thus creates, defines, and regulates primary rights." State v. Smith , 84 Wn.2d 498 , 501, 527 P.2d 674 (1974). Procedural law, in contrast, pertains "to the essentially mechanical operations of the courts by which substantive law, rights, and remedies are effectuated." Id .

---

So now the question is: does waving, suspending, or reducing a penalty refer to "substantive" law or "procedural" law. In the Ward case, the court ruled that a judgment to pay costs was a "substantive" right, and, therefore, the RCW prevailed. I'm not so sure about this case. I believe that a deferral SHOULD be considered a "mechanical [operation] of the courts by which substantive law, rights, and remedies are effectuated." But that's just my opinion.

Fun question, though, ain't it?

Barry