hey jeff, just heard another local buddy got his reduced to a seatbelt infraction just like you. also saw this and thought it might be related;

Think you can beat a speeding ticket in Snohomish County?

By Diana Hefley
Herald Writer
EVERETT -- Beating a speeding ticket in Snohomish County may be harder than it used to be.

Fewer challenged tickets are being thrown out of court ever since the county hired a full-time deputy prosecutor to handle civil infractions in the county's four district courts.

More people who fight traffic tickets are being forced to pay for violations, such as speeding or tailgating.

Proponents say the new program is putting a stop to a "game" some habitual traffic scofflaws were winning in the county's traffic courts.

"There was a culture developing where if you were motivated enough to challenge a speeding ticket or wealthy enough to hire an attorney, you would discover one of the loopholes in the law to excuse you from the ticket," Snohomish County Prosecutor Janice Ellis said. "Infractions were an ignored part of the law."

One frequent path for tickets being dismissed has been all about process -- not guilt or innocence.

Defense lawyers knew that without a prosecutor dedicated to handle civil infractions, a request for a police officer's "declaration," a written description of the events, likely would go unanswered. The case would be dismissed for failing to meet discovery requirements, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Jessica Ness said.

"There was no accountability for people driving badly in Snohomish County," she said.

The County Council this year funded a full-time deputy prosecutor and secretary to handle civil infractions. The program costs about $136,000.

"Our goal is to enhance respect for the traffic laws," Ellis said. "We know law enforcement doesn't want to waste their time."

As part of her job, Ness has spent time educating police officers about writing complete declarations that will hold up in court. Often tickets are dismissed on procedural matters, she said.

"We're in the best position to help them understand what is going to be expected of them in court," Ellis added.

Ness doesn't prosecute all traffic infractions. Generally she becomes involved after someone, often a defense attorney, has requested the police affidavit.

During the first three months of 2009, prosecutors attended more than three times as many civil infraction hearings than during the same time last year.

The fines leveraged against offenders have more than tripled.

Between January and March, prosecutors attended 896 contested ticket hearings. Judges upheld 75 percent of those tickets and fined the defendants about $111,000. Prosecutors didn't attend 143 contested ticket hearings, and about 70 percent of those were tossed out. Offenders were fined about $8,000 for the tickets that were upheld.

In comparison, between January and March 2008, a prosecutor attended 245 hearings. Of those, 190 tickets were upheld and people were fined about $30,940. During those same months, 293 hearings were held without a prosecutor. About 90 percent of those cases were dismissed and about $4,500 in fines was assessed.

Ness can't get to every case in the county's four district courts. She tries to focus on the more egregious offenders, including those who caused injury collisions, Ness said.

Before Ness came on board, people injured in crashes caused by traffic offenders often didn't know the ticket was being contested.

"Ninety-nine percent want to come and testify and be heard," Ness said.

Local defense attorneys say they have seen an increase in the number of tickets being upheld in court.

They disagree that their clients are trying to beat the system.

"Not every defendant is guilty or trying to get out of a ticket. They are entitled to their day in court," said Arlington attorney James Mucklestone. "I don't think they think it's a game."

People generally hire an attorney because they disagree with the police officer, he said. Part of that may be because there is limited communication between officers and the people they stop, Mucklestone said.

Tickets used to be handwritten and had to be signed by the driver. Now, drivers don't have to sign the tickets. Some police departments have even gone to electronic tickets, Mucklestone said.

"A lot of defendants feel like they're on a processing line," he said. "They need their day in court to feel like they've been heard."

There are some people who contest the violations because they feel like they're being taxed with a police ticket book, Mucklestone said.

"Enforcement has gone through the roof. The number of police officers out there is staggering," he said.

For most people, a traffic stop will be their only brush with law enforcement, Seattle-based defense attorney Lisa Donaldson said.

"They have a right to be represented just like the state has the right to have someone there," she said.

from;
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090713/NEWS01/707139890

I had someone I know that was witness to a crime and went with him to court to see how things go. You know what - often the system has just such a plea in place for ANYONE, and its not something special the attorney did, but they report it like it was some victory or something...

they ALL want money -- ALL the time

Illinois has just installed "photo camera's" around the work zones near Chicago to catch speeders. The camera will record the face and license number of anyone caught going 1 mile over the posted limit. The fine is $375.00 for the first offense. That's for 1 mile over. Second offense is $1000.00 fine, 90 days suspension, etc. And they say its to help the workers. No, it's another money grab.

I just sent this to the author:

Dear Ms. Hefley,

I read with great interest your article "Think you can beat a speeding ticket in Snohomish County?" in today's Herald. As a recent "victim" or two dishonest Snohomish County Deputies running a speed trap, I feel I must interject what I learned from my experience. I was well and truly shocked and saddened by what I learned of our "justice" system as it currently stands regarding traffic infractions.

The key word is apparently "infraction," as opposed to "crime". The rules in court change dramatically when dealing with an "infraction" rather than a "crime". The most appalling change to court rules are those that strip the citizen of our right to due process. In traffic court, the citizen has no right to a jury trial. No right to representation. No right to appeal. Criminal court requires all of that; traffic court disallows it. In addition, the standard of evidence is reduced to that of "preponderance" (from "reasonable doubt" used in criminal court), which has a very precise legal meaning. It means that if "51%" of the available evidence points to a given verdict, that "51%" is sufficient. In today's traffic court, in all practical terms, that "51%" is the police officer's word. No more, no less. There is essentially no evidence required other than the officer's testimony (which can be in the form of written declaration - the officer need not be present).

In my particular case, the two aforementioned dishonest Snohomish County Deputies took full advantage of their legal advantage in court. They were operating a speed trap, and said speed trap had been well and truly "outed" by a steady stream of motorists traveling past it in both directions. I had been receiving the flashing headlight, hand out the window giving the "slow down" gesture for miles prior to happening upon these two. I was at the tail end of a long string of vehicles, traveling at precisely the speed limit, when these two stepped out into the road and flagged me to pull over. They claimed I was doing 16 mph over the speed limit, and wrote me up accordingly.

I was absolutely incredulous. With just the three of us there, I called them on their dishonesty. All three of us knew full well I was not speeding (as an aside, this has already been to court and reduced to a non-moving violation of equal value - a seatbelt violation. I was riding a Ducati motorcycle...) and that they had simply made it up to fill their ticket book. The arrogance displayed by these two, their flippant "tell it to the judge" (one actually said that) attitude spoke volumes about their status as "untouchable". The knew full well I did not have the proverbial "snowball's chance..." in court, and they flaunted this knowledge in the most brazen fashion.

And they were right. In today's traffic court, they need bring no evidence and the citizen has no rights. Officials of the State cite, accuse, try, and render judgement, with no involvement from the citizenry. There is a clear conflict of interest here - a financial one. It's high time citizens' basic rights were restored in this court system, if for no other reason than to protect us from dishonest cops like the two I met. Police officers are no better than the rest of us; they can be dishonest, motivated by promotions, pay, or whatever. Or they can simply make mistakes, just like the rest of us. The courts are meant to provide scrutiny for their actions and accusations; today they simply do not. Our fellow citizens must be involved any time the State accuses a citizen of wrongdoing; the State simple cannot be allowed to judge its own accusations. We allow it to do so in traffic court. As a result, this "absolute power" has well and truly "absolutely corrupted". It's time to demand a restoration of our rights as citizens in these courts.

Jeff Higgins

"It's not about the money"
(you asked us to tell you)

This could get interesting. Hope you can roast them Jeff.

If you were working in the work zone you might feel differently.

I've driven through there a few times(about once every 6 months), and if these are installed on the tollway then they're going to make a killing. 45MPH on an interstate where the median speed is 65mph. Yes it's a construction zone, but many are/were inactive and walled off by jersey barriers. Sounds like a cash grab to me.

Peter Egan once wrote a column about increased fines in work zones. Some states leave the fine increase active even when no workers are on the job, like on weekends or in the middle of the night (if a day crew is working the job). Some establish "work zones" miles ahead of where any work is taking place. All in an effort to reduce worker/vehicle accidents. A commendable goal, no doubt.

Problem is, the vast majority - something like over 90% - of all worker/vehicle accidents at road construction sites are caused by - wait for it - construction vehicles working those jobs. Yet the authorities use these accident stats to increase fines on the general public, who are (quite demonstratably) harmlessly passing by. Said officials typically exclude data from their reports to the public that would indicate just who is running over all the road workers. They can't let it get out that they are, in fact, their fellow workers. So the fleecing of the public continues, under the guise of "doing something" for these poor, beleagered road workers.

I will be 100% supportive Jeff, if your efforts result in legislation drafted to fix this absence of due process in traffic court. I have shared your concerns for many years now and frankly, I think traffic court judges do too. Let me know how I can help/participate.

But I also know that flaggers and other construction workers are KILLED each year, every year, in Washington State, by motorists who are not part of the construction project. Yes, construction workers are also hurt and killed by construction equipment and vehicles that are part of the construction site. But to dismiss the fine-doubling policy on the basis that construction workers are not in danger from John Q. Motorist is a whopper of a deflection. In my humble view, the fine-doubling policy through construction sites is good policy.

Great letter Jeff! Hope fully they print it or follow up for another story.

I read the article about "work zone" fines. This really has gotten out of hand.