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.