Contesting 71 Over 55 on Washington State's SR 270

[ticketnoob]

Ok, I can post on this thread again.

searcher99, can you please send me a quote of my follow-up so that I can edit my post? Or you may want to post my follow up on this thread directly. Thanks.

And since my earlier response to Taxing Matters got deleted, I will post it again:

Two things...

Thank you for your insights, I appreciate your time. I would never lie in a court of law. I was brainstorming hypothetical ideas for academic reasons.

[searcher99]

...If you would like to PM me with whatever content you want in your thread, I’ll try to put it there for you...

Thanks a lot, searcher99. I read your reply on my thread. Very insightful reply, I hadn't considered those possibilities for suppressing the RADAR reading and for prejudice. Thank you.

I observed the court's traffic docket today. Judge seems to be very helpful, tried his best to educate defendants of their rights, without advocating for them. The next traffic docket is on the 29th, which is when I'm scheduled to appear before the judge. I did learn today that Whitman District Court allows moving infractions to be amended to non-moving for an admin fee of $250, if you have no such prior amendments on your file.

At this point in time, my strategy is to-

If the officer shows up:
STEP 1: Ask the judge if he would allow me to preserve my deferral/amendment options until I obtain the results of my preliminary motions. Either way, go to STEP 2.
STEP 2: Try searcher99's preliminary motions. If anyone of them is granted, move to dismiss. If none of my motions are granted, suck up and defer/amend/pay.

If the officer doesn't show up:
Since I've rescinded my subpoena, I can't move to dismiss officer's report per IRLJ 3.1(a). The strategy remains the same as if the officer shows up.

What do you think of my sequence, searcher99 et al.?

Thanks a lot for your time, folks.

Also, I just noticed this: my height is listed on the ticket as 5'1", whereas my height (as listed on the driver's license) is 5'10". Is this a detail that merits dismissal of the ticket?

Thanks again.

The moderation changes are new and a bit confusing to me, but anyway I’ll do my best.

From what you are saying it sounds like no prosecutor is present at these hearings and you are willing to risk losing. Probably the amendment option is only available before preliminary motions, so that’s something you will need to consider especially if you see the officer. If the officer is present the odds are likely against you, but if motions are denied you can try to cross examine him about his conflicting written statements.

I doubt the typo about your height will matter, but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in IRLJ 2.2(d).

Edit: However it always seems ludicrous to me that anyone can amend to an unrelated non-moving violation although they seem to have no problem doing it.

[ticketnoob]

...but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in IRLJ 2.2(d)...

Is there a rule/law that I can use to show the judge that the ticket amount cannot be higher than what is prescribed in the JIS Law Table (Washington Bail Schedule)? Can I use IRLJ 6.2(a)?

Thanks.

[ticketnoob]

I still can't post a reply with links. Any post containing links is being sent for moderator's approval. Apologies for not adding links to the relevant laws in my follow-up below.

...but the fine amount seems to me a more serious argument because it would need to be amended and quite possibly can’t be due to the time limit in IRLJ 2.2...

Is there a rule/law that I can use to let the judge know that the ticket amount can't be more than $187 in my case? Should I use IRLJ 6.2(a) or should I just state that the ticket charges more than what is specified in the Washington State Bail Schedule? Thanks!

Edit: Never mind, figured out that the higher ticket preliminary motion should argued on the grounds of prejudice of substantial rights and subsequent noncompliance with IRLJ 3.1(d) and IRLJ 2.1(a).

[SandlingAllDay]

Since it's not yet your scheduled court date, I shall reply only to say good luck, and that I can personally attest to Searcher and Taxing Matters reliability and assistance in these issues (and surely others)
They, along with some other kind folks helped me navigate though my 1st (and last) speeding ticket, where I went up against the prosecution (Tukwila, WA) and WON.
It seems that WA may have managed to close the loophole in which I won with (SMD radar calibration checking) so I hope that your court date goes smoothly.

A few tips from experience...
Write your notes CLEARLY.
Breathe.
Do not interrupt the judge. (yes, self explanatory... But still lol. You'll be surprised at how nerves can screw you!!)

Lastly, PLEASE return here and share the results... Most people do not... And I can attest to the appreciation of those helping you, when you give a modicum of information on how things went.

Good luck!!!

[ticketnoob]

Court report:

The officer did not show up and I contested with the strategy that I laid out earlier in this thread and lost. After I made my motions, the judge took a "recess" and vanished for 30 mins. He said he was researching IRLJ 6.6 (d), but I doubt that took him 30 minutes. My theory is that he was contacting the officer and/or reading this forum. Due to small town nature of Pullman, I reckon that the judge likely knows the citing officer. The judge's behavior changed completely towards me after he returned from his "recess". Whereas in cases before mine, he allowed defendants to use their deferral even after a finding of committed, he was not budging in my case. Such selective application of rules is a remarkable quality that can be seen in small towns.

The Whitman district court in Pullman has a highly informal traffic docket.

I was expecting the process to be:
--> Judge considers my first motion and makes a ruling on it. I make subsequent motions later one by one sequentially.

Actual process was:
--> When I told the Judge that I had preliminary motions, he asked me to list them all. He took some notes and then vanished into his 30 minute "recess".

Results for my motions were (you can check out my motions in previous posts):

First: he didn't think the contradicting statements in my case had any effect on the fact that I was speeding or not. I tried to argue that the statements undermined the statement's credibility, but he didn't entertain the argument.
Second: he didn't think the certificates were hard to search and told me that he found them online.
Third: he found no prejudice in $187 vs $190. My final committed amount is $190 as well, he didn't even reduce it to $187 as a show of gesture to my attempt at contesting.

End of report.

[searcher99]

Thank you for your detailed report. It’s true that some courts especially in small towns are less inclined to consider preliminary defenses that focus on technical defects. That’s why it’s really a good idea to listen in on defense attorneys representing infraction cases. If they are only doing deals and deferrals, then you have a strong clue that it’s a difficult court.

The fact that the judge took a 30 minute recess at least indicates that you made compelling arguments that he couldn’t just roll over without careful consideration. You can appeal to Superior Court, but that’s expensive in terms of both time and money so would not be an option unless you really wanted to take it on as a project.

[ticketnoob]

Thank you all for your help, especially searcher99. I had a lot of fun working on my case, didn't feel so excited for anything in the last decade. I heavily considered bailing out via deferral or amendment to non-moving, but what's the thrill in that? Haha.

I would have liked to elevate this to Superior Court (SCourt), but Whitman county's SCourt doesn't hold a trial for appeals of infraction cases. The SCourt will only review the record that is provided by the district court. I don't see a point in spending $386 just to have SCourt review the materials without a trial. And I'm positive that the SCourt judge is a friend of the district court judge and would likely rule against me.

It was fun while it lasted. Hopefully, I don't get another traffic ticket, but if I do, I know how to play the game now :-P

[PayrolGuy]

The fact that the judge took a 30 minute recess at least indicates that you made compelling arguments that he couldn’t just roll over without careful consideration.

Or it meant the judge needed to poo.

[joef]

Ticketnoob, I am sorry you lost. The issue of attacking the officer's credibility in WA is that the standard for conviction of a traffic ticket is only preponderance of the evidence. You would have to have demonstrated that the inconsistencies in the officer's statement were so egregious that almost nothing he stated was believable. Casting doubt is not enough. The fact that the officer took the time to stop you and issue a ticket indicates that he believed you were speeding is a lot of evidence to overcome which is why most wins are on technical grounds, not "here is why I believe the officer got this wrong". Obviously he believed it was more likely that you were speeding than not and found you guilty even with the issues with the statement.