Here's what I would do: Call the Clerk of the Court listed on your ticket. See if you can get a deferral for "neg-2". A deferral means that you will pay an "administrative fee" -- usually around $150. Then, if you don't get any more tickets for the next year, this one is dismissed -- doesn't go on your record, doesn't affect insurance rates. Some jurisdictions, however, will NOT grant a deferral for neg-2, some will. If the court allows it, and it's something you wish to do, you can then chose EITHER contested or mitigation and ask for the deferral at your hearing.
If you CAN get a deferral, you may wish to go that way, since, the only other option for "getting out of it" is to contest and prevail.
If you wish to contest it, you MUST return your ticket requesting a contested hearing. At that time you will receive a hearing notice. You can then file a Discovery Request. I have posted an adaptable form which you can use. Just click "Free User". Then click the "Download" button, when it appears -- sometimes you have try a few times. Follow the instructions included.
When you receive your discovery materials, you will see the evidence against you -- the officer's sworn statement. You may have a possible technical defense, as well. You were cited for a violation of RCW 46.61.525.2, which states:
Quoting RCW 46.61.525
I would argue that paragraph (2) "creates no citable traffic offense". (See STATE v. MacRAE, 101 Wn.2d 63, 676 P.2d 463 (1984).) Even if the judge allows the citation to be amended to paragraph (1), it will still be up to the prosecution, using the officer's sworn statement, to prove that you were operating "a motor vehicle in a manner that is both negligent and endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property." In other words, just saying you were going 95 in a 60 zone is NOT sufficient. But, that's the reason you need to submit a discovery request so that you KNOW what the officer wrote.
Anyway, I hope this helps you understand some of your options.
Good luck,
Barry
i was thinking about this too......paragraph 2 of the statute is not a way to be charged, it is a informational subsection about the word "NEGLIGENT" it is not a charge or an offense as 46.61.525.1 is. the officer has not charged this properly. subsections to the statutes consist of different ways to commit the alleged offense, exceptions for the offense and definitions of the offense. Basically the officer has cited you specifically for violating what i would argue is not a charge but a definition in the statute. HE SHOULD HAVE CITED YOU FOR 46.61.525.1a.....I90 means district court and in the times we are in right now, i have not seen prosecutors at contested hearings. Contested W/accident yes, but not contested traffic cases. Get discovery . I believe Barrys arguement above is spot on but i would suggest getting discovery as well, just to be on the safe side. Normally pacing affidavits are pretty easy to surpress...
This is for either of the persons quoted above.. what is the proper or correct way for the violation to be cited? For example, if the officer cited for 46.61.525 without specifying any additional paragraphs/subsections, would this effectively include everything (all subsections) contained within that statute code? Is a citation such as this procedurally correct? I have a Neg 2 citation I'm preparing for.
It depends State V leach requires all elements to be denoted and in the statute an element is a subssection. for example. If the officer note the general statute ie...46.61.525 there are different ways to commit the alleged charge and those ways are denoted in subsections. By not identifying the way he/she is charged, the state has failed to comply with state v leach
Well, unfortunately, that's NOT true for Neg-2. Here is the entire law:
Quoting RCW 46.61.525
As you can see, ONLY paragraph (1)(a) defines an offense. All the remaining subsections are either informational or contain definitions.
Furthermore, I think your reliance on Leach is misplaced. Leach says that ALL the "elements" must be denoted in a "complaint", but makes no mention about the subsection -- except in the Elverston matter that was combined with Leach at the Supreme Court level. I am referring to STATE v. LEACH, 113 Wn.2d 679, 782 P.2d 552 (1989)
Elverston was charged under "11560201c", which apparently should have read "SMC 11.56.020(A)(1)(c)". The only description on the citation was "DWI". Elverston contended that without the "A" in the Municipal Code specification, the citation is invalid. Furthermore, she contended that "DWI" was an inaccurate description.
The court held that even though the "A", describing the subsection, was missing from the citation, and even though the description, itself, may not have been perfect, BOTH were adequate. In addition, Elverston failed to show how that lack of the subsection prejudiced her substantial rights. Lastly, the court concluded that there is a difference between being charged by "complaint" and being charged by "citation":
Quoting Seattle v. Elverston (citations removed)
Barry
i am going to have to look into this a bit deeper. I hearing Ms. Mucklestone at kcdc about 6 months ago. she was citing motion to dismiss state v leach violation....i will see what i can find out about this. With respect to this post the OP was cited for the statute plus subsection 2....makes no sense to me....I will research this argument and why exactly the courts in our area allow this motion to dismiss.....
However, your explanation above makes alot of sense if we look at it just as you put it...
I guess thats why you are the man, the myth and the legend when it comes to these darn things! :-)