[Jeff Higgins]

Trial by Declaration is just another sham put forth by our shameless traffic court system. You might as well just send the check in along with your declaration. All the "judge" (and I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a clerk) does is read your declaration along with the officer's report. The officer has no more obligation to show up than you have. Money in the bank. All this serves to do is to fool those who still don't understand the real intent of traffic enforcement, or the new rules surrounding that enforcement.

With our modern "no proof required" standard of evidence used in traffic court, it is very much up to you to prove innocence, rather than up to the prosecutor to prove guilt. The standard of evidence (at least here in Washington) has been reduced to "preponderance" from "beyond reasonable doubt". "Preponderance" simply means "51%" (however the hell they measure that...) of the "evidence" says you are guilty. In most courts, the fact that an officer felt strongly enough about your behavior to stop you pushes it well past that invisible "51%" line. You are fighting your way back from there.

In practical terms, the only way to win a traffic case here in Washington is on a technicality. If you are well enough versed in police procedure regarding traffic enforcement, and the laws governing their procedures, that is the direction you need to go in your declaration. Find something the officer did wrong, or neglected to do at all. Anything else, unfortunately, is just wasting your time. Since you (like the rest of us) are probably not that well versed, it would serve you best to hire a lawyer who specializes in picking that brand of flychit out of the pepper.