* Nabbed......speeding in Washington State. Need advice.

[Craig 930 RS]

37 in a 25. $132.00!! In the 911, via radar after truning a corner. Lame.
No speed limit sign on the street except "20 mph when children present". There were none.
Does this 100% certain mean that:
A) Hey....no speed limit sign. Get outta jail free, ticky tossed...
B) Hey dumb*****, if no speed limit sign posted it means X mph at all time unless otherwise posted

Boxes to check on back:


My goal is a deferrment - be good, no pay, no record.
Which box to check and what to do?

TIA,

[Z-man]

Well, here in NJ, the rule is, if there is no speed limit posting in town limits, then XX is the max speed limit. (I believe XX is 25 or 35 mph).

So you won't get anywhere with the 'there was no speed limit posted' argument. I suggest that you check the DMV driver manual to see if the 'understood' speed limit in town limits is 25 or 35. If it is 35, then your speeding ticket could be greatly reduced to a 2 over vs. a 12 over.

-Z-man.

[Craig 930 RS]

What I thought.

Which box? Admit guilt? Say I didn't do it box?
Advice needed -

[ubiquity0]

In CA no limit posted means 30 (I think)

[concentric]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
In CA no limit posted means 30 (I think)

It's 25 for residential streets and 35 for business areas.
Last ticket I got (7 years ago), I finished my traffic school test in about an hour, so they made me read the CVC for the other 7.

[Craig 930 RS]

Plead guilty and show in court?
Not guilty?

See pic

[Drago]

Check box number two. Go to the hearing...plead your case and pay the reduced fine.

Me? I'd just pay it as taking the time off of work would cost me more than what your ticket is written up at.

Where did you get the ticket? My last one was on Market St. coming from the Juanita side by the pedestrian bridge. Damn Kirkland cops.

[Superman]

I'm no expert, but I think it's different depending on whether your citation was issued by a State Trooper, or a local policeman. A couple of years ago, I got my first ticket in something like 12 years. Turns out, if you have not had a ticket in seven years, you can take a "deferment." This ticket was issued by a State Trooper (it was a bull**** ticket issued by a so-called Aggressive Driver Unit...long story....Iv'e ranted about it here), so I was told that stuff like driving school as a way of eliminating the ticket was not an option. But I was told that if the ticket had been issued by...say...a deputy sheriff, then there would be other options like traffic school.

The deferrment means if you get a ticket in the year following the beginning of the deferment, then both tickets go on your "record." But if you don't get another ticket in that time, then the deferred ticket goes away. Except that it's still another 7 years before you can take another deferrment.

You don't need to appear before a judge to get this. I did appear, thinking that the bull**** ticket could simply go away, but judges apparently do not have that latitude. And they're not pleased about lacking the authority to waive a ticket, given the circumstances.

[Craig 930 RS]

Written on the 'small' 124th Ave N.E. - residential headeding towrds 85th by a local Kirkland Nazi...er, cop.

So how do I get a deferment, Supe? Go to court or not?

[WaA420]

Get an attorney and send whom ever issued the ticket a quest for discovery and get the whole thing dropped on a technicality. I've done this my self and it felt good to know the cop screwed up and I was free and clear.

[Superman]

WaA420 does have a good suggestion. My desire was to not have this on my clean record, so the fine was not as important. With the deferment I still had to pay a fine of something like $110 (for 72 in a 60). It is common for citations to be tossed on a technicality

But no, you don't have to go to court to get a deferment. I did go there, and the judge told me he was not authorized to modify or waive the citation. when I told him I was eligible for a deferment, he got happy, asked his assistant to look it up on the computer. When they noticed I did qualify, the hearing was over then and he deferred my citation.

Again, you can do this without going to court, but I'm not sure of the exact details. Just call. Actually, throughout this ordeal, the ladies I spoke with at the clerk's office were extremely helpful and available. I mean, available to get on the phone. Imagine that. Gubmint workers who are helpful. Almost like they're human people.

[djmcmath]

First -- I'm not a lawyer. I don't play a lawyer on TV. If anything in this post looks like legal advice, you've clearly made a mistake. I'm not qualified to offer legal advice.

Second -- I have fought a ticket in this state, with limited success (91 in a 60 argued down to 70 in a 60 in a Kangaroo Court).


Which county?

Were you actually doing 37?

Did your radar/laser detector go off?

What kind of street was it? Go back to the scene and take pictures, make notes, look for anything useful. You may be able to find high voltage power lines, billboards, etc. that could have caused radar interference (assuming he's claiming a radar speed).

RCW Title 46 has a lot of useful information. It should be noted, btw, that none of the normally applicable Constitutional rights for criminal offenses apply, as this is a violation of code, not a violation of law. Bigger difference than you might think -- that means they only have to make a vague pretense of legal proceedings. Justice is non-applicable, and revenue is king. But I'm bitter...

Anyhow, I'd contest it, simply on the grounds that it makes the system work. Plead not guilty and send it back in. Start drafting up a request for continuance, if you feel you're going to need more time to collect evidence. You should also write a request for discovery to get evidence from the officer (per se). The stuff you're looking for is training records, radar certification, the officer's copy of the ticket, his statement, that sort of thing. I've heard of cases where the whole offense was tossed out because the gov't failed to provide all requested documentation under discovery.


(sigh) I could go on, but it's probably moot. You're going to fight it, and you're going to lose. You could hire a lawyer, which would cost, perhaps $500, and he may have a better chance of success than you do. Ultimately, the system isn't concerned about justice, it's concerned about revenue. At least fighting it makes the system work for it's money, rather than you just handing it over.

Good luck,

Dan

[Jeff Higgins]

Darn Craig, that stinks. I know that area well. I lived for almost 6 years just down the road from the pig lady. I don't know what to tell you as far as fighting it or not. It sounds like you are getting a lot of good advice from some fellow Washingtonians here. I just mentioned on another thread how I've never had a speeding ticket, what I meant was one that stuck. I have just checked the box(es) to indicate Im not guilty, want a hearing, and I want the cop present. In the couple or three times I've done this the cop didn't show up. Instant dismissal.

[Craig 930 RS]

I've been thinking about this situation and the excellent responses - thanks all - and I also need to mention sometin..

I'ts important:

About 6 months ago I received my first ticket in years - 55 in a 35 going up 85th St. NO side streets, NO one around...except a revenue enhancement specialist; aka a Kirkland cop.

So I hired a lawyer who does this sort of thing. E-mails only, had a court date - he wrote back that he got it dismissed. I do not know how --- hell, I never even got a BILL for his services!!

But......& a big but here......if it was a deferment that time, am I screwed with another ticket?

What the hell do I do?

Help!

[djmcmath]

RE: Jeff Higgins' comments: Under WA state rules, the officer isn't required to be present. Even if you request him, his written statement is considered sufficient presence at the hearing. Local judges may rule more conservatively (more in favor of the constitutional right of a criminal to be presented by his accusers), but state law does not require the officer to be present.

This flies in the face of the MAR 2004 Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, which ruled that any ex parte testimony is invalid. Specifically applicable to this case, if the officer isn't present, anything he said is invalid. That makes Jeff's cases look proper, though the judge ruled in favor of common sense, not in favor of the courtroom "rules" of the People's Republic of Washington.

I haven't spoken with anyone who's successfully employed CvW in a real court, though I have heard of people successfully using Jeff's common sense approach to the problem.

Dan

[Jeff Higgins]

Interesting information, Dan. I quite honestly had no idea what I was doing the first time this happened to me. My very straightforward (probably more like simplistic and naive) point of view was I thought the cop should be there so I could ask him a few questions in front of the judge. No lawyer or anything, mind you, just a way too cocky kid with a motorcycle. Darn good thing he didn't show. As the years passed and I made my next couple of appearances, I would still ask for the cop's presence. One day a case ahead of me, with legal representation, had a no-show by the cop. The lawyer politely pointed out his innability to cross-examine the officer, and the case was dismissed. I'm not sure if there is anything to that, or if it was a sympathetic judge.

So Craig, I would sure as hell find out the status of that last ticket before you decide. If it was a deferment, and what these guys are saying about them is true in Washington, it sounds like you are screwed. Way under the time limit. I know a couple of guys in my office that have taken the "traffic school" route, but with back-to-back tickets, I'm not sure that is an option. Big question for me (not that the judge would give a *****), is did you start down this path to destruction after the 3.6 install? The timing looks suspicious... Maybe you could plead insanity; if the judge won't buy it, just show him the car. On second thought, maybe not. They would certainly throw away the key...

[Craig 930 RS]

I did. I have fallen off the wagon with the 3.6
Only partially kidding --- !

[Big Ed]

Originally posted by Craig911


So I hired a lawyer who does this sort of thing. E-mails only, had a court date - he wrote back that he got it dismissed. I do not know how --- hell, I never even got a BILL for his services!!

But......& a big but here......if it was a deferment that time, am I screwed with another ticket?

What the hell do I do?

Help!

Craig,

This seems "too obvious" as you haven't mentioned it, but why wouldn't you go back to this same attorney again for the new citation? From your experience it would appear that he's competant. And, if your last ticket was deferred, and you are now screwed, he'd most certainly know.

Mike

[djmcmath]

Jeff -- that's good to know. Encouraging that some judges, even here in WA, still have some respect for the constitution.

Craig, I think Big Ed's right. Just go back to your lawyer. That's some real legal advice.


Dan

[Superman]

Yes, talk to an attorney. The same one sounds competent. I know an attorney that deals in these situations. I think the gubmint has a certain amount of time to bring this to a hearing. Postpone. If they miss the date, you win. There are lots of reasons why you can win on a technicality.