Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

    I recently received a notice of infraction from the city of Lynnwood for running a red light.

    http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52696

    I reviewed this post, which is from another member who also got a red light ticket in Lynnwood. I will be dealing with the same judge and prosecutor, and would like to get any input on possible defenses for my case.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    Did you have any questions?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    Yes, Once the prosecuting attorney argues that it is my burden, as he did in the post above, what would be a good counter arguement?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    3,577

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    I can only think of ONE counter-argument -- but it's pretty good, I think. Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. RCW 46.63.075 states (in pertinent part):

    Quote 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.

    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.

    The prosecutor in the case from the other thread was dead wrong, however, he/she got away with it because the defendant was ill-equipped to argue the law.

    Barry
    Where am I going? And why am I in this handbasket?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    I can only think of ONE counter-argument -- but it's pretty good, I think. Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. RCW 46.63.075 states (in pertinent part):




    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.

    The prosecutor in the case from the other thread was dead wrong, however, he/she got away with it because the defendant was ill-equipped to argue the law.

    Barry
    I am sorry if I am a bit confused-but does this mean if you argue that you werent driving it WILL be thrown out? Or-it MIGHT be thrown out??

    Thanks for any input! I need to come to a decision on the same basic ticket.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    Quote Quoting blewis
    View Post
    I can only think of ONE counter-argument -- but it's pretty good, I think. Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. RCW 46.63.075 states (in pertinent part):




    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.

    The prosecutor in the case from the other thread was dead wrong, however, he/she got away with it because the defendant was ill-equipped to argue the law.

    Barry

    You're kidding yourself if you think there's any argument that the judge would accept here. They've had hundreds of cases come through, have heard all the arguments. What the judge really knows is that if he accepts this argument, it will be impossible to enforce any of these tickets. Your chance on this is to accept you will lose in district court, take it up on appeal, and hope you can get the appellate courts to actually consider your argument seriously.

    Feel it's not worth the time, trouble, and potential money? You're exactly right, and you just got rolled by the system. Let's hope someone unreasonably stubborn takes up the issue for all of us.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107

    Default Re: Red Light Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington

    Just to add this as you were probably charged under LMC 11.18.010... The city's own version is pretty close to the states but you never know,,,

    11.18.030 Prima facie presumption.
    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)
    http://www.mrsc.org/wa/lynnwood/index_dtSearch.html

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Red Light Camera Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington
    By AdHawk in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-28-2011, 09:18 AM
  2. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Red Light Camera Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington
    By Julian in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-20-2011, 12:55 PM
  3. Lights, Signs and Traffic Controls: Camera Ticket for Right Turn on Red Light in Lynnwood, Washington
    By skyrocket101 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 11:00 PM
  4. Speeding Tickets: Speed Camera Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington
    By quadrifoglio in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-24-2010, 06:05 PM
  5. Speeding Tickets: Speeding Ticket in Lynnwood, Washington
    By berryberry101 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 08:48 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources