Right Turn on Red Camera Ticket

My question involves a traffic ticket from Puyallup, WA.

My questions/concerns are two part:

First:
My husband received a "Notice of Infraction" from the city of Puyallup for a red light violation, per camera/video. He wasn't driving but can't really prove it. He was home babysitting the kids; I was driving. So, my first concern is that they are ticketing the wrong person. It shows both of us as registered owners but the ticket is clearly mailed to and issued to him. While it says it does not appear on your driving record, I don't think he should get the blame.

Second:
The video shows that the light was clearly red when I passed the marked line and entered the crosswalk. I'm not arguing that. My newborn was screaming in the back seat, so I wasn't paying the best attention to the light. I came up on the light too quickly and didn't have time to stop before entering the intersection. I stopped just passed the crosswalk (my rear bumper was in the crosswalk) and slightly angled around the corner. My stopped for just barely a second; it looks more like a rolling stop because I knew I was in the way and didn't want to stay in the way with a truck coming at me...so I quickly kept going.

So, how do I get this out of hubby's responsibility and is there any hope of fighting the ticket. I did try to stop. Unfortunately, 2 month old babies don't keep quiet in the car so we can pay better attention. The ticket is $124 and we don't have the money. In fact, we're on state aid (medical insurance for the kids, WIC, and food stamps) because our income is so low right now.

Of course he can prove it. There should be a picture of the driver. All he needs to do is say, "it wasn't me!!" Given the gender mismatch, it should be pretty easy. So, YOU don't do anything. YOU haven't been charged with anything, so YOU have no standing to do anything. Your husband must deal with this. However, he should understand that he is under no obligation (as in most states, someone correct me if WA is different) to identify the driver.

There's no picture of the driver. All photos and video are taken from the back of the car. I think the law says that he has to prove he wasn't the driver...which he may be able to do with an email trail since he was probably on the computer at home.

But then, they'll just reissue it to me, right?

According to RCW 46.63.170 (e):

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.63.170

---

(e) The registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for an infraction under RCW 46.63.030(1)(e) unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption in RCW 46.63.075....

---

The "presumption in RCW 46.63.075" is overcome by:

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.

---

So, all your husband has to do is show up in court and state, under oath, that he was not driving at the time. The case should be dismissed. Notice that NOTHING in the law requires him to identify WHO was actually driving.

Good luck,
Barry

p.s. Jim, the law in WA FORBIDS the cameras from photographing the driver!!!!! See RCW 46.63.170 (c) which states:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.63.170

---

(c) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate and only while an infraction is occurring. The picture must not reveal the face of the driver or of passengers in the vehicle.

---

So, once he gets it dismissed (if they dismiss it since I see other people on this forum saying they weren't able to get tickets dismissed this way), they'll reissue the ticket to me? It seems pretty obvious that's what they'd do if there is more than one registered owner.

So, once it is issued to me, do I just pay this? I failed to stop at the line or crosswalk per the law. Do they really care why I stopped past the line and then quickly continued so it looks like a rolling stop?

Quote:

---

Quoting joannqn

---

So, once it is issued to me, do I just pay this? I failed to stop at the line or crosswalk per the law. Do they really care why I stopped past the line and then quickly continued so it looks like a rolling stop?

---

You shold cross that bridge when you get to it.



Blewis, I guess WA is a "civil" state instead of a "criminal" state. You made a good point, but I'd be willing to bet that a WA judge will just ignore that law the same as a CA judge. I hope not. I'd really like to know what the outcome of this is.

A friend of mine had a "school zone" violation. His wife was actually driving at the time. He just went into court and signed an affidavit stating that he was not the driver. The judge asked who the driver was, and my friend said it could have been his wife or either of his older kids -- he didn't know for a certainty, nor had he ever asked. Case dismissed.

Once you have "overcome the presumption" as prescribed by law, the judge pretty much has his hands tied. The evidence no longer preponderates against you (we don't even have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard), since the ONLY "evidence" that YOU committed the offense IS the presumption.

Barry

Since the law states "this presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states...", are they only looking for the affidavit from the one owner cited? Can they then argue that the citation is assumed to apply to both registered owners...or just the one cited?

Actually, my friend and I discussed this issue -- his wife's name was on the registration, as well. Here is the legal argument:

1) The state must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that YOUR HUSBAND committed the infraction. "Preponderance" means that it is more likely than not -- not 51%, but 50% plus just enough to tip the scales.

2) The PRESUMPTION in traffic camera cases is that the registered owner is the one who committed the offense.

3) Since there are TWO registered owners -- you and your husband -- how can the state show that one of you was more likely to have committed the offense than the other? Since there are two of you, there is EXACTLY a 50% chance that your husband did it -- NOT 50% plus some amount just because his name is listed first on the registration -- no additional evidence to tip the scales.

4) Given this presumption, and the fact that there is EXACTLY a 50% chance that YOU committed the infraction, the state cannot prove its case against your husband.

Since my friend wasn't the driver, he decided it was easier to just say, "I didn't do it". However, I would have loved to see how the other argument would have been received.

As Jim (EWYLT) pointed out -- YOU were NOT cited. There is NO case against you. If the prosecution decides to refile against you (that did NOT happen to my friend's wife), you can always use the argument above. Remember, it's not whether you did it that counts, it's whether the prosecution can PROVE it by a preponderance of the evidence (see RCW 46.63.090 (3)).

Barry

Edit: Oh wait, you cannot use that argument. Remember, that according to the presumption, there is a 50% chance YOU committed the offense. However, if your husband testifies that HE DIDN'T do it -- that increases the odds that you did. Hmmmm. Just hope they don't refile against you.

You've been so helpful.

The affadavit that they are pointing us to provides three options to prove preponderance. You are suppose to check which one.

( ) car was stolen
( ) car was sold
( ) car was in the care of _____________ person at ______________ address.

Does he just ignore the form and write "I don't know" for the person and address. I'm sure he could also attach emails or something to show that he was at home on the computer (can't really write emails while you are driving).


While I know that the law doesn't require you to tell them who had the car, the form seems to require it.