[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