Traffic Court (Appl. to WA, for sure)

djmcmath · 04-02-2004, 08:23 AM

Washington State traffic laws do not require the citing officer to make an appearance in court to convict the defendant. 99% of the time, the officer won't bother to show, even if subpoenaed. Those of you who have some constitutional law background will complain that failure to be confronted by the witness constitutes a violation of your "due process" rights. Unfortunately, in a 1980 case (Roberts v. Ohio), the Supreme Court decided that in some particular cases, the witness does not need to be there, and written or taped evidence is acceptable. This is how WA courts (and some other states, I don't know which ones) can get away with not having the officer present. The infraction notice constitutes sufficient "confrontation," somehow. However, as of March 8th, the Crawford v. Washington case has overturned that decision -- any witnesses against the defendant must be present to confront the defendant. In the case that we're most likely to see, the only evidence against us will be the infraction notice ("ticket"), which, under this latest decision is ruled as "hearsay," and can be suppressed before the trial even begins. Bottom line: if the officer doesn't show, and you can correctly make the Crawford v Washington (March 8th, 2004) argument, you're clean.

Dan

*I am not a lawyer. None of the above constitutes legal advice.

**http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-9410 -- here's the link to the decision. Enjoy, it's a long painful read.

vash · vash's Garage

thanks dan!

i was hoping this was going to be about "markie" (is that her name?) from NIGHTCOURT!

djmcmath · 04-02-2004, 09:13 AM

hahah, I only wish. Pics, anyone?

Sorry, Cliff, it seems like CA state law already requires the officer to show, so this one doesn't help you any. Not that you would ever commit a traffic infraction, or be wrongly accused of same, but ...

Dan

vash · vash's Garage

yup, texas and cali both require the lying bast...ahem... peace officer to show up. that is the only way it makes sense in my mind.

Moses · 04-02-2004, 09:21 AM

Impossible for the State to legally prosecute a "camera" violation. There is no witness. In L.A. traffic court, someone fought a ticket by camera. The judge showed the defendant a picture of his car and plate. The defendant said, "But your honor, I don't think you are allowed to present evidence, are you?" Case dismissed.

djmcmath · 04-02-2004, 09:25 AM

I concur -- camera violations ought to be very difficult to uphold. Not only was there no confrontation at the commission of the crime, there's no confrontation in court, and the judge presents the evidence!! It's like a farce of law, like a pseudo-justice. Amazing.

As to whether or not the judge is allowed to present evidence ... WA state gets around that with a funky little workaround. Not being an attorney, I don't remember the details, but one of my lawyer friends just fought that in court and lost. I plan on using the same thing when I go to court next month, on the off chance that judge doesn't know any better. We'll see.

Dan

djmcmath · 04-02-2004, 09:56 AM

Actually, in further reading the Crawford v Washington case is criminal. Traffic violations aren't usually criminal, but are rather infractions against code, which is totally different. I wonder if the 6th amendment applies here? Anybody want to try this one in court?

Dan

Scooter · 04-02-2004, 10:24 AM

Dan,

I have a freind that is a lawyer and he used the "hearsay" defense successfully last year. Actually, he was not even an attorney at the the time, but a Rule 9 Intern. The judge liked the defense so much, he just threw out the ticket. However, I don't know if every judge would do the same.

Dantilla · 04-02-2004, 12:21 PM

I have a friend who, until recently, was a cop in my small town. He loved going to court, for two reasons- The look on the defendant's face when he showed up, and the money. If it wasn't during his scheduled shift, he was paid overtime.

He recently left law enforcement. He decided that with two little kidlets, he didn't want to have to put on a bullet proof vest every night just to go to work.

djmcmath · 04-02-2004, 12:41 PM

I assure you, all judges are a little different. An attorney friend of mine recently had a ticket dismissed on similar grounds -- "Neat arugment -- that was entertaining, case dismissed."

Dantilla -- if a defendant is unprepared for a witness to make an appearance at trial, or worse, is counting on said failure to appear as the critical component to his defense, he deserves to lose. More power to your friend for showing up regularly.

Dan