Seat Belt Ticket Issued to Rear-Seat Passenger

My question involves a seatbelt ticket from the state of: WA

My wife was driving, I was sitting in the rear seat. Our car was stopped supposedly for speeding. The officer gave my wife a warning, but noticed that I did not have my seatbelt on (I did have it on when the car was moving). So unfortunately, I was issued a seatbelt ticket.

I know that WA has a Primary seatbelt law. However, in this case I think it was a secondary action. The officer's statement says "Defendant was the right rear passenger in a vehicle I stopped for speeding. Upon contact defendent never had his seatbelt on."

My question is: the officer's testimony does not state how speed was established (nor does my ticket have any mention of speed). Does this create a foundational issue upon which I can get the seatbelt ticket dismissed?

Since the "speed" is not an element of the offense you were charged with, the speed information is irrelevant to the citation you were given.

With that being said, there are two ways to look at the seat belt charge. One would be:
The vehicle was not moving when the officer observed you without your seatbelt, so the legal requirement to have it on does not apply. The other way is that the vehicle was moving prior to the stop, and not having your seat belt on when he observed you might suggest that you didn't have it on before (in other words, why would you take it off if you were still seated in the same spot you were sitting in?)... Although without him actually seeing that you didn't have it on prior to the stop might imply that the citation should not have been issued. This all depends on how the statute is worded.... So what statute (number) were you charged with?

Others may have other opinions.

Probably RCW 46.61.688:

Quote:

---

Quoting RCW 46.61.688

---

(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.

---

Note that the law says "riding", not "sitting". To me, anyway, that implies that the vehicle must be moving -- but maybe not.

Barry

The violation stated on the infraction notice is "46.61.688 NO SEAT BELT".

During the stationary contact, the officer first observed that I was not wearing my seatbelt and inferred that I did not have it on when the car was moving. The reason why I had taken it off? It's a little complicated - although the officer says that he stopped our car for speeding, my wife pulled over to the side only because my aunt's car traveling directly behind us was getting pulled over by the officer from behind (we were traveling in a remote area, and my wife naturally did not want our cars to get separated). I took off the belt once we were stopped so that I could turn around in my seat and see what was going on behind us (i.e. why had the officer stopped my aunt's car).

My preference is to get the officer's statement supressed on foundational grounds. However, if the officer's statement is read in court, I would argue that it has contradictions. The officer says that the traffic stop occured while he was going 55 mph and my wife was supposedly going 68 mph, and that at that point itself he observed that I (in the rear seat) was not wearing my seatbelt (which I would argue is far-fetched- at those speeds, and also he has chosen not to fill in "Distance from violator"). Then, in his remarks he says "Upon contact, defendent never had his seatbelt on" (implying that he determined this only upon contact - contradicting that he observed no seatbelt while we were driving 55/68 mph respectively ).

On exactly what "foundational grounds" do you hope to suppress the officer's statement? While I, obviously, do not have access to the entire statement, the parts that you have cited here do not lack foundation.

Furthermore, your interpretation that the statement is self-contradicting is, IMHO, also without merit. If I were the judge, I would take the officer's statements as fairly conclusive. Basically, he did not see you in a seat belt at the point where he observed the car speeding and suspected that you were not wearing one. Then, when he approached, he was able to affirm his suspicions.

I don't agree with your opinion that the officer's statement about "Upon contact, defendent never had his seatbelt on" somehow implied "that he determined this ONLY upon contact". Perhaps an improper use of the word "never", but certainly not a contradiction of his earlier statement.

Barry

Thanks for your reply Barry. I am hoping to suppress based on:
1) IRLJ 2.1 deficiency on the infraction notice - it has the officer's signature, not his name.
2) For the discovery, I was mailed the officer's statement, but not copy of the original infraction notice that the officer filed, showing the filing date.

It is possible that the judge may not see the officer's statement as contradictory re: observing no seatbelt "upon contact" vs. "while speeding". Thanks for telling me the reality - I may be putting too much weightage on the officer's wording.

However, I will argue that there is reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the officer's visual determination while he was driving 55mph and we were driving 68mph (a speed differential that would increase the distance between us by 19 feet a sec). Why didn't he indicate his distance from us? (quite relevant if he actually observed something within the car, as he has claimed). I have taken photos that show that even one car-length behind you cannot see "the seatbelt buckle hanging loosely behind the passenger's right shoulder".

I would really appreciate your further guidance in this.

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

1) IRLJ 2.1 deficiency on the infraction notice - it has the officer's signature, not his name.

---

What? What are you talking about? Show me the paragraph in either IRLJ 2.1 or RCW 46.63.060 that REQUIRES the officer's NAME. In fact, if the notice ONLY contained the officer's name and NOT his signature, you could claim that the notice did not comply with RCW 9A.72.085. However, even that could be overcome by dismissal and having the infraction notice reissued.

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

2) For the discovery, I was mailed the officer's statement, but not copy of the original infraction notice that the officer filed, showing the filing date.

---

You had better read IRLJ 3.1 (b). There is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT for the prosecutor to send you a copy of the filed notice. That's usually done routinely, but it is NOT a requirement.

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

However, I will argue that there is reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the officer's visual determination while he was driving 55mph and we were driving 68mph (a speed differential that would increase the distance between us by 19 feet a sec).

---

"Reasonable doubt" has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING. All the officer needs to stop and detain you is "probable cause" (and his signature on the Notice of Infraction asserts that he did, indeed, have PC). Oh, and there is case law that states that an officer's "visual estimate" of speed is good enough grounds for "probable cause". It may not be enough evidence for a conviction, but it does justify a traffic stop. And, remember, "preponderance of evidence" is all that is needed for a conviction -- "reasonable doubt" still does not enter the picture.

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

Why didn't he indicate his distance from us? (quite relevant if he actually observed something within the car, as he has claimed).

---

I don't know why he didn't. Perhaps you can use that to your advantage. I've seen other tickets dismissed because the officer failed to indicate his position when he allegedly observed the infraction.

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

I have taken photos that show that even one car-length behind you cannot see "the seatbelt buckle hanging loosely behind the passenger's right shoulder".

---

Ah, well, unfortunately, "loosely behind the passenger's right shoulder" violates the "properly adjusted and securely fastened manner" clause of RCW 46.61.688, doesn't it? Attach it properly and then see how far away you can see it.

Barry

From IRLJ 2.1:

(b) Contents. The notice of infraction shall contain the following information
on the copy given to the defendant..............................
.................................................. ......................
(4) The infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed and
the accompanying statutory citation or ordinance number, the date, time, and
place the infraction occurred, the date the notice of infraction was issued,
and the name and, if applicable, the number of the citing officer;


I take it that this is a required, not an optional, piece of info, but could be wrong.


Another technical detail with the infraction notice that I would value your opinion on:

The officer has correctly checked that I was a passenger. However, the officer has also filled in the vehicle details below the statement "did operate the following vehicle/motor vehicle on a public highway".

Obviously, if I was a passenger, I did not operate the vehicle when I "did then and there commit each of the following offenses".

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

the name and, if applicable, the number of the citing officer

---

You're right, sorry -- I missed that. I guess the question that then comes to mind is whether court might view the officer's signature, if legible, as meeting the requirement for "name".

Quote:

---

Quoting sunnysingh

---

Obviously, if I was a passenger, I did not operate the vehicle when I "did then and there commit each of the following offenses".

---

I have no opinion on that -- it may work, it may not.

Barry

Thanks Barry.

The signature is definitely not legible to establish the officer's name.


Another question, per these rules on what the infraction notice should contain:
- RCW 46.63.060.(c) A statement of the specific traffic infraction for which the notice was issued;
- IRLJ 2.1.(4) The infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed and the accompanying statutory citation or ordinance number;


does what the officer wrote (i.e. "46.61.688 NO SEAT BELT") satisfy the requirement? Or is the officer required to specify the subsection, which could have been either:

46.61.688.(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner

or

46.61.688.(4) No person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either: (a) Wearing a safety belt assembly or (b) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.



I know that I was the passenger, and that there were no kids in the car with us; I am just asking about a technical way to get the case dismissed before any testimony is entered.

I understand that judges will vary in what they will allow, I am just looking for at least one technical point that has a good chance :)