Results 1 to 4 of 4

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Whatcom County, Washington
    Posts
    10

    Default Is Discovery Due Based on the Date of a Traffic Violation or the Date of the Ticket

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of WA. I was pulled over and was told he was sending ticket to court for mailing. I was not issued a ticket at the time. Date was 10/30/12. I recieved the ticket in the mail in December. Shows filing online and printed on ticket 11/12/12. I contested. Court date set for 2/5/13. I filed for discovery within 15 days of trial date. They responded with Delivery of Notice of appereance and Discovery and extended court date to 2/27/13. In reviewing discovery response I note that ticket was not filed for 12 business day; however not served on me on the original date of infraction. Does this qualify to make a motion to dismiss based on IRLJ 2.2(d)??? Is there anything else you can see in the attached images that could motion for dismisall?





    ***Note: Peronal information was removed from documents. Not to be discussed on ticket dismissal.***

  2. #2

    Default Re: Ticket Sent to Court for Mailing, Discovery Filed by Me, Irlj 2.2

    IRLJ 2.2d states
    The notice must be filed within five days of issuance of the notice, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
    So not the date of the infraction, but the date the ticket was issued is important here. Figure out what date he issued the ticket and you can figure out if you have a shot at dismissal under 2.2d

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Whatcom County, Washington
    Posts
    10

    Default Re: Ticket Sent to Court for Mailing, Discovery Filed by Me, Irlj 2.2

    Well.... The court issued the ticket to me via mail. Not sure if I have the original but I will investigate. Correct me if I am wrong; the ticket was issued to me after the ticket was filed, check the dates printed on the ticket, right hand side. Filed 11/15/12, infraction date 10/30/12. Sent in mail to me after that by the court. They filed it and then mailed it. IRLJ 2.2 only references issuance then filing, not the other way around. I was told by the officer that he was going to give it to the court, and they would decide if they wanted to issue it. Filed first, then served. ? Cant find any threads on this concept. Any tips or motions available? You guys are the experts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,383

    Default Re: Ticket Sent to Court for Mailing, Discovery Filed by Me, Irlj 2.2

    First of all, I would like to say that this is one of the most unusual circumstances I have EVER seen.

    Sparing the legalese, I'm going to try and explain this as simply as possible:

    When the officer issues a ticket, it is the date that he writes on the ticket. This could be different from the date it occurred. Take this as a synonym for "execution." An officer executes NOI on the date that he signs the infraction notice and prepares it for service.

    Issuance is different from filing and service. Filing is the date it was filed with the court (obviously) while service is the date that the document is given to the adverse party.

    In your case, the officer executed (issued) the ticket on 10-30-12. Filing occurred thereafter on 11-15-2012 and service was completed in December (3 days after it was placed in the mail) via what's called the "3-day mailbox rule." (See CR 5 (b)(2))

    So, In short, the answer to your question is YES. Your route to dismissal would be what Speedy stated in one of the previous threads referencing IRLJ 2.2(d).

    If the prosecution says it wasn't issued until the prosecution signed the copy, this is incorrect. IRLJ 2.2(a) says otherwise.

    I hope this is making sense.

    Absent that, you have TWO MORE possible motions. The first one being that the NOI isn't signed under the rules of RCW 9A.72.085 and therefore hasn't been issued under penalty of perjury (no date). The second being that there are two signatures on the NOI and only one statement: without the other officer's testimony, this case is incomplete as it looks to me that there is no testimony from the officer who stopped the defendant.

    If you're still lost, find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary.

    Granted, if this was my case, I'd move to continue the case so that the I had more time to prepare a prosecution. Your response to that should be an objection as the prosecution has already moved the date once and you are already being inconvenienced by the time off work. "The prosecution should have been ready to try the case when they filed the case."

    Good luck.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Driver's License Issues: Traffic Citation with No Written Date or Violation
    By MikeInDanger in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2012, 09:34 PM
  2. Ticket Errors: Wrong Date Listed on Federal Traffic Violation Citation
    By 93blazer in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-21-2011, 11:01 AM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Actual Violation Date vs Issue Date - IRLJ 2.2 Loophole for Redlight Camera
    By belikeh20 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-04-2011, 04:30 AM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket Court Date - They Never Sent Me the Discovery I Requested
    By ahlysah in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 10:17 AM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Wrong Date On Ticket, Corrected On Discovery
    By callioca in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-23-2008, 02:12 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources