Failure to Stop at Stop Sign in Washington

[jlee8196]

Can I contest the officer did not have an exact location.?
Also with Traffic: Moderate. can I contest he could not observed me before and during the intersection?
Thanks for inputs.

[blewis]

Wow, this is kind of interesting. I looked up the location on Google Maps. As you can see from the street view looking in the direction you were supposedly going, THERE IS NO STOP SIGN! Now, the aerial view does show STOP LINES, which do not appear on the street view. Interesting....

Yes, I believe you can make the argument that the officer does not disclose his location -- only that he was "operating" his motorcycle. He does not disclose what direction or on which street he was located at the time. He also does not state that he had a "clear and unobstructed" view of the intersection. I would argue that, since we don't know the officer's location or direction of travel, it is likely that the officer may have been going in the opposite direction, he may have had to turn around -- at which time he may have lost sight of the vehicle which actually ran the stop sign and pulled me over because I probably have a car similar to the one he actually saw. If that doesn't work, I present a printed copy of the Google Maps picture showing that there wasn't even a stop sign at the location indicated in the officer's sworn statement.

All things considered, I give this about a 50 - 60% chance. Not all that great, so a lot will depend on your presentation.

Good luck,
Barry

[jlee8196]

That intersection has been revised, so the street view is not up to date.
I thought that the officer did not disclose location, direction and clear view, this would be consider pretty good 80%+ dismiss.
Barry, what makes this not all that great in your opinions?
I do have a deferred finding I could use before the case.

[blewis]

That intersection has been revised, so the street view is not up to date.

That's about what I figured.

I thought that the officer did not disclose location, direction and clear view, this would be consider pretty good 80%+ dismiss.
Barry, what makes this not all that great in your opinions?

If an attorney were making the argument, you're probably correct. However, if a prosecutor or the judge asks a question, most pro se defendants don't have very good answers. For example, the judge might ask, "Well, if you thought that the officer's location were so important, why didn't you just subpoena the officer and ask where he was?"

I do have a deferred finding I could use before the case.

It's certainly worth some consideration. Personally, I'd fight it, but you'll have to decide for yourself.

Barry

[jlee8196]

Thanks Barry. Great info.
How would you answer that question not subpoena. I would say "Officer would not remember that much detail since it's been a while would just refer to his notes anyway."
I have till Wednesday to decide. meanwhile I'll to the that intersection and take some photo. look for some blind spots.

[jlee8196]

Can I contest that there is not enough evidence, such there's no location or direction traveled, and no clear view on the statement.
The reason I did not subpoena the officer is that it should be the prosecutors to provide sufficient evidences from the officer.

[jlee8196]

I'm coming from the left. The intersection where the car is. Not the one with stop line. Could I make a case that the officer can't not see the line.?

[lurkertom]

I can see the stop sign and crosswalk lines in the street. Is this the view from the LEO's location? The infraction says you rolled through the stop at 15MPH.

[jlee8196]

What's LEO? 15mph could be missed judged. since its not by radar. Anyway to contest that?

[bruinPE]

I believe it means "law enforcement officer." The speed was a visual estimate by the officer, and I doubt it matters by a few mph on a running a stop sign infraction.