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):
Quoting RCW 46.63.075
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.
Where am I going? And why am I in this handbasket?