My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington
Yesterday I received a red light camera infraction in the mail from the city of Lynnwood, WA. This was for failure to stop at a red light when making a right turn.
I see from reading the following forum topics, if I submit a Declaration of Non-Responsibility and not name the driver, it will be rejected. I was planning to fill out the Declaration, not name the driver, and write the following statement quoting the RCW and LMC codes highlighting the word "only". Is this a proper way to write a statement?
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.Dear Sir/Madam,Quoting LMC 11.18.030 Prima facie presumption.
A. In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under this chapter, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was involved in a stoplight violation, railroad crossing violation and/or school speed zone violation, together with proof that the person named in the notice of infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred.
B. This presumption may be overcome ONLY if the registered owner, under oath, states 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. (Ord. 2789 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2642 § 1, 2006)
As you can see from the highlighted portion above, the law provides that the written statement or oral testimony, made under oath, is the ONLY means to overcome the presumption. The word "only" in statutory construction PRECLUDES any and all other alternatives. In this case, it precludes ANY OTHER means of overcoming the presumption. In fact, according to the law, no other proof SHOULD even BE acceptable. Nor any combinations of other proofs.
In fact, to even ASK for other proof is to totally ignore the word "only" in the statute, the use of which makes it clear that the legislature's intention was to limit the ways the presumption could be overcome to just one.
Based on the RCW and LMC, I am required to submit a written statement, so please accept this as my statement.
I, ADH, the registered owner of ABC-123, make the following statement:
On the 32nd of August 2011 at about 0123am, I state that the vehicle involved was, at the time, in the care, custody or control of some person other than the registered owner.