Quote Quoting blewis
View Post
You may have a possible technical defense, as well. You were cited for a violation of RCW 46.61.525.2, which states:




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."
Quote Quoting colemac65
View Post
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.