Washington Traffic Law Blog : Washington Traffic Lawyer & Attorney : Jon Zimmerman Law Firm : Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma

As 2011 comes to an end and the State of Washington has begun to charge motorists a toll for crossing the 520 Bridge, traffic has decreased by nearly 60 percent as 40,000 daily drivers avoid the toll, according to figures obtained by the Seattle Times. State officials with the Washington Department of Transportation tell us that with decreased traffic, the commute times between Bellevue and Seattle are much faster. What they won’t tell you is that there is a very good chance that the police will issue more speeding tickets on 520 now that people have a greater opportunity to speed due to decreased traffic.   

Don’t believe it? On the first day of tolling, the first car to get tolled was traveling at 76 mph, according to data released by WSDOT. While this event occurred at 5:00 A.M. and the driver was apparently trying to beat the toll by seconds, the ability to speed without traffic is increased, even during peak hours. Officials claim that they don’t share speed data with the Washington State Patrol. That would be illegal. Instead, officials share speed data with the WSP, the media, and everyone who will read about it!  So much for WSDOT obeying the law.  You probably won’t see WSP enforcing any laws against WSDOT, but what you will see are WSP troopers pulling drivers over on 520 and issuing speeding tickets that threaten insurance premiums, people’s driving privilege, and drivers’ livelihoods. 

Although WSDOT would like drivers to use 520 and pay the toll, the tolls will actually have the effect of rerouting traffic to I-90 for toll avoidance while creating an incentive to speed on 520. If a toll on 520 means less traffic there, and WSDOT is talking about a “faster” commute for those who choose 520, drivers will be able to step on the gas. However, drivers should know that WSDOT is not increasing the speed limit to compensate for less traffic on 520. 

Also, no plans to reroute troopers who respond to traffic events on 520 have been reported, which means a smaller officer-to-vehicle ratio on 520 than prior to tolling. All other things staying constant, this means that a car on 520 that is speeding probably has a greater chance at getting pulled over on 520 than prior to tolling. 

My prediction is that in 2012, Seattle area drivers will see a greater police emphasis on enforcing the speed laws on 520 than on I-90. Drivers using I-90 and crossing over Mercer Island to get to places such as Bellevue, I-405, and Issaquah might encounter more traffic, but probably fewer incidents of speeding tickets than on 520.  Happy New Year!  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As drivers begin travel for the Thanksgiving holiday, they should be aware that law enforcement will be joining them on the roadway in places such as Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma, and points in between. A couple years ago I wrote about the Thanksgiving holiday weekend being the worst for traffic fatalities. Add more cars to the road, families in confined spaces over long distances, and the sometimes-complicated dynamics of family get-togethers and a recipe exists for distracted drivers and traffic violations. What this usually means is more collisions, more traffic tickets for violations of following too closely, failure to control speed to avoid a collision, speeding, negligent driving, and failing to yield to an emergency vehicle or violations of emergency zones. Whatever the reason for the police pulling someone over, expect a greater emphasis on enforcement.   Below are a few tips for trying to avoid getting cited over the holiday weekend in the State of Washington. 

First, drop the cell phone. Cell phones are a major reason people get pulled over. Distracted or not, and whether you are actually holding the phone to your ear will be secondary to the police officer who pulls you over when the officer sees you holding a cell phone. If you have a Bluetooth-enabled device consider using this, but do not dial or text while driving or even while in traffic. Avoiding these behaviors will save you some hassle.  

Second, if you drink let someone else do the driving. Despite the fact that it is legal to drink and drive in the State of Washington (with limitations, of course), you can be below a .08 and still be charged with DUI or an alcohol-related offense. Thanksgiving is a holiday when law enforcement is going to be serious about enforcement, and you can be serious about your driving. Stay over at a friend’s or family member’s house if you drink over the holiday weekend. Even if you only have a drink, if you are in any collision (even one not your fault) and this causes a police response, the investigation will be longer if the odor of alcohol is detected or you exhibit any signs of impairment. 

Third, try to reduce speed and switch lanes prior to 200 feet, if safe to do so, before you catch up to visible emergency responders, including tow trucks, police cars, ambulances, and fire trucks. Under RCW 46.61.212, you can be cited for an enhanced traffic infraction, and if you put or were likely to put an emergency worker in danger, you can be charged with the gross misdemeanor of reckless endangerment of an emergency worker.  Slowing down and creating an extra lane between your vehicle and an emergency response vehicle are good ways to avoid these types of traffic offenses. Of course, if you get cited, you can send me an e-mail or call me for help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Speeding in a school zone, defined in RCW 46.61.440 and by many equivalent municipal codes, is a type of traffic infraction that many drivers receive in the State of Washington, though tickets for this type of offense are frequent in Lake Forest Park, Seattle, and jurisdictions throughout King County. This post focuses on some tips to avoid these infractions, what it means if you get a school zone ticket, and what you should do (and shouldn’t do) with a school zone ticket. 

These tickets are most frequently-issued in two types of ways: (1) by a law enforcement officer observing the speeding, pulling over the driver, and issuing a citation or (2) by a camera taking a photo of a license plate (also known as a traffic camera citation). As of the date of this post, traffic camera citations do not affect the driving records and privileges of drivers who receive these citations Washington. 

To avoid these infractions, drivers should take special notice any time drivers are entering a school zone and reduce speed to no more than 20 MPH. Reducing speed is a critical tip for parents because parents are frequently in school zones and dropping off and picking up children at school. Police officers love to pull parents over and issue parents tickets for speeding in a school zone, even for driving 25 MPH. 

Sometimes, it is difficult to know the location where a school zone begins: for example, in some jurisdictions, there is a sign that says “School Ahead” or “Reduce Speed to 20 MPH,” but in other jurisdictions it is not as obvious, and rarely if ever is there a sign that states “School Zone Begins.” Signs are indications that a driver is about to enter a school zone. Another indication is a sign that specifically mentions that there is a traffic camera. Traffic cameras are often attached to speed measurement devices around school zones. In addition to reducing speed to no more than 20 MPH and looking for signage, drivers might want to avoid school zone areas entirely during certain times of day, typically in the early morning or mid-afternoon, when students are going to and leaving school. Another way to avoid a school zone ticket is to drive on streets where there are no, school zones may extend 300 feet from the school or playground property, as well as 300 feet from a marked school or playground crosswalk. 

If you receive a school zone ticket, one thing you should know is that you cannot mitigate a school zone ticket. Although mitigation is an option on the ticket, mitigation is actually not an option under Washington law for this type of infraction. The reason is that the Legislature decided that a person who is found to have committed an infraction (either by admitting to the infraction by mitigating, paying the ticket, or after a contested hearing) shall not have the penalty waived, reduced, or suspended. Therefore, if you want a reduced penalty for the infraction, you will not get one because mitigation is not an option. Do NOT mitigate.  DO contest your infraction so that it can be challenged to avoid higher insurance and marks on your driving record.  

In addition to not being able to mitigate your fine, the fine in a school zone speeding ticket is higher than a normal speeding ticket. Although regular speeding tickets are also moving violations, drivers who get speeding tickets in a school zone face more serious consequences. If you have received any type of speeding offense, contact my office for help.   

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Freelance correspondent Karen Aho had a very interesting article last week about a small town in Missouri that collected more than 75 percent of its annual budget from traffic fines.  Unlike in the State of Washington, in Missouri, traffic ticket collections are capped at 35 percent of a town’s revenue.  In Washington, however, police officers from Seattle and Everett and deputy sheriffs and state troopers from King County and other places such as Lewis County and Thurston County patrol state roadways looking to bring in money for their respective municipal, county, and state governments, without any limitation.  

In her article on insurance.com, Aho discovered a 2006 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that found that the number of tickets issued in municipalities increased on average by 0.4 percent for every 1 percent decline in other revenue.  Aho writes:  “Individual officers may concentrate on public safety, but the data show that departments tend to increase the number of tickets issued during hard times.” 

But in Washington it’s not just municipalities, it’s county and state governments that are also seeing a decline in revenue.  That’s not good news if you’re commuting on I-5 to places like Seattle and Tacoma or you are driving over I-90 to Bellevue and Issaquah.  As declining revenue is continuing to be a problem for local and state governments, expect to see more local police officers, deputy sheriffs, and state troopers pulling drivers over for speeding.  The hope is that people will just pay the fines. 

In Washington, drivers who get and don’t fight their tickets will see these tickets stay on insurance records for three years.  As Aho mentions in her article, the government never even see most of the money auto insurance companies are making off the driver with even one traffic ticket.  Speeding tickets account for millions of dollars of increased premiums for drivers in the State of Washington. 

It’s not uncommon for a driver with even one speeding ticket to see an increase in premiums of more than 20 percent.  Why?  Because insurers think that drivers with even one traffic violation are a greater risk to insure than drivers with no speeding tickets.  Insurance also increases for drivers who get tickets for negligent driving, failing to signal, running a stop sign, improperly being in the HOV, and having a brake light that is out, among other traffic offenses.  

Luckily, a driver in the State of Washington has a choice: pay the fine and allow insurance companies to hike premiums, or contest (fight) the ticket and try to keep the ticket from affecting one’s driving record and insurance.  If you have received a speeding ticket or other type of traffic violation and want to keep it off your record, please contact me.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In 2007 I wrote a post about traffic tickets and prehearing conferences and what happens at a prehearing conference in Seattle.  Recently this post has come under criticism for two particular statements I made in the post:  

1.  The magistrate will attempt to get the driver to essentially mitigate the infraction, thereby saving court resources and obtaining revenue for the city, county, and/or state and 

2.  Prehearing conferences are mostly a scam.

As to the first point, one criticism here is that at most magistrate hearings in Seattle Municipal Court, driver-defendants want to mitigate (e.g., admit and pay a reduced penalty) their infraction.  Apparently, even drivers who check the contested hearing box often don't understand the difference between mitigation and contesting the infraction, and many driver-defendants who check the contested hearing box just want to explain what they did wrong or justify wrong action.  So, the criticism to my 2007 point goes, the magistrate has no desire, strategy, or inkling to lean in any direction with the driver-defendant before the commencement of the prehearing, and that the magistrate doesn't care whether a driver wishes to have a contested hearing or a mitigation hearing, magistrates are patient about explaining the options and will even allow someone who signs up for mitigation to go to a (future) contested hearing.  I think this is as a whole a fair point and worth noting on this blog.  I can see how magistrates collectively might feel that it is unfair to say that they themselves try to convince a driver to do anything, especially as magistrates each have individual viewpoints, make decisions separately from their colleagues, and help comprise the judicial branch (which I am reminded is a separate branch of government).  In my experience, however, a number of magistrates will offer an amount of money that a defendant can pay to close a case, and this becomes the take it or leave it offer, and the defendant who leaves it is forced to return to court.  

The second point above receives criticism because it is viewed by some that I am impugning the magistrates and that prehearing conferences are not a scam because defendants are put on notice of the prehearing conference, that defendants can waive the prehearing conference, and because magistrates are not involved in setting a fixed amount of what one pays and that these amounts vary on a case by case basis and by individual magistrate.  Also, as a separate branch of government, the judiciary does not have to answer to the other branches for the fine amounts the judiciary imposes.  

I want to note that I think most Seattle magistrates are good, decent, and hard-working people and I do not believe that any type of fraud is going on involving the magistrates.  I know of no fraudulent scheme by the magistrates and I do not wish to imply that any has gone on.  

I do, however, think that the system of prehearing conferences is designed in such a way as to hurt a lot of defendants and while I don't blame the magistrates for that, they are part of a system that could use great improvement.  For most defendants in Seattle Municipal Court, a visit to a magistrate is what court in Washington means to them--magistrate as both negotiator and neutral, and no prosecutor with whom to negotiate.  

There are a few benefits of prehearing conferences for some people but there are more things I dislike about them, and I think for many people prehearing conferences are a bad idea, especially for those who get moving violations and have a lot of collateral consequences at stake (employment, insurance, driving privilege, to name a few).  Before I talk about some of the problems I have with prehearing conferences as presently conducted, let's examine a few of the good things about them in certain cases.  

BENEFITS OF PREHEARING CONFERENCES

• Judicial economy.  One benefit of a prehearing conference is judicial economy.  It's simply quicker to get a case done in a magistrate's chambers than to have a contested hearing.   Seattle Municipal Court has the largest traffic ticket caseload of any court in the State of Washington, and hence magistrates help facilitate the speedy, just, and inexpensive determination of every infraction case, and prehearing conferences allow magistrates and courts to get through a high volume of cases quickly.  
• Parking and traffic camera violations.  Many of these violations can be dealt with at a prehearing conference and it is much quicker for a magistrate to view someone's residential parking zone permit or disabled parking permit at a prehearing than at a full-blown hearing in a courtroom a floor above.  Same with traffic camera violations.  
• (Some) people like prehearing conferences.  Some people like the privacy magistrates' chambers afford, the fact that magistrates are not in robes, and the somewhat less formal nature of a prehearing conference.  
• Striking a balance.  Some people believe that because traffic tickets are less formal than most civil and criminal cases, prehearing conferences to avoid a contested hearing or even a mitigation hearing in open court are a good idea.  Certainly this viewpoint can be consistent with judicial economy.  

But there are also problems.  

PROBLEMS WITH PREHEARING CONFERENCES IN SEATTLE

• The magistrate is both third-party neutral decision-maker and lead negotiator.  Many magistrates will tell you that even individuals who come to contest their tickets at prehearing conferences want to negotiate either a reduction of fine or request a dismissal.  I don't have a problem with the request for a dismissal, and on occasion a request for a dismissal might even be granted.  What I don't like about this as a whole though is that the magistrate as both negotiator and judge is a departure from how the American judicial system works in most civil cases (negotiations between the parties outside the presence of a judge) and criminal cases (negotiations between a prosecutor and a defendant or defense attorney).  In fact, in most jurisdictions that hear traffic infraction cases, there is no negotiating with a judge, and for good reason--the judge is supposed to be the third-party neutral.  I think the negotiation aspect at the prehearing in Seattle puts magistrates in a bad position because they are the ultimate negotiators and decision-makers at this stage of the proceedings, which is the only stage for most defendants.  Magistrates get blamed by the media, the Legislative branch (City Council), the Defense Bar, and individual defendants because they are negotiating and deciding.  In fact, if you don't like how the negotiation is going at the prehearing, a defendant can reschedule for a contested hearing, but now the magistrate-negotiator gets to sit as a pro-tem judge.  It's not always the same magistrate sitting as a pro-tem judge at the second hearing, but it doesn't appear that fair or protective of a defendant's right to have a person who has the appearance of being completely neutral in  the upstairs courtroom when that person or person's colleague was negotiating in the downstairs offices.  Again, I want to reiterate that I think most Seattle magistrates try to be fair and are decent human beings, and often a magistrate in a prehearing will be different than the pro-tem judge, but I don't think it is completely natural to have a negotiator and judge be the same person or even colleagues.  It merges the roles of the the responsible party for prosecuting civil infraction cases (the executive branch) with those responsible for adjudicating disputes (the judicial branch).  I know in certain civil cases two judicial colleagues will be involved in a case--one as mediator, the other as a judge, but there is a wall if a mediated case goes to trial and the judges typically don't communicate.  In an infraction case in Seattle, there is no prosecutor appearing at prehearing conferences and no other representative of the plaintiff.  The magistrate negotiates.  
• Seattle Municipal Court has called prehearing conferences "prehearing SETTLEMENT conferences."  The word "settlement" for these conferences is not in state law.  The conferences have the appearance of being designed to want something other than contesting the infraction.  I should note that Seattle Municipal Court hosts mitigation hearings in the same location as prehearing conferences, however, the prehearing conferences are given to those who seek a contested hearing.  A person wanting a contested hearing is told that he/she has to have a "settlement" conference first and tickets are rarely dismissed at this stage.  Of note, however, is that people can waive these conferences, but most people don't read the forms they are sent.  So a number of people have to return to court a second time.  This still might be good for the judiciary in filtering people, but it's not great for the person who wants to challenge their ticket at the first instance and who does not understand what happens at this initiate stage of the proceedings.  
• The prehearing conference takes place in a placed called a courtroom, but it does not look like a courtroom and the rules of evidence do not apply.  In Washington, the rules of evidence apply in infraction cases, but at prehearing conferences, individuals can't really contest tickets, so the rules of evidence are on hold.  The courtroom has a large waiting area with some clerks and several seats.  "Courtroom" is posted within.  There is no bench and no counsel table.  Magistrates' offices are equipped with recording equipment, and people are recorded, but the recordings are not kept for contested or prehearing purposes.  It is unclear whether the proceedings are open or closed to the public, but visitors are asked to fill out a form, to have a seat, and wait their turn until their name is called for today's case.  The proceedings are not like normal court with a robed judge on a bench and the rules of evidence.  
• Magistrates are not elected like the court's judges and this taints the public's perception of what goes on behind closed doors or doors that appear to be closed.  The seven judges of the Seattle Municipal Court are elected; however, magistrates, who consider themselves part of the judicial branch of government, typically serve at the pleasure of the Presiding Judge rather than the voters, but, like municipal judges, magistrates get funding from the City Council.  There is some argument that because of state law, which helped to create the Seattle Municipal Court, the City may not be able to get rid of the Municipal Court, but it is a lot easier for the Council to tinker with magistrates and other court employees than elected judges, perhaps with the exception that in recent years, the City Council did get rid of one elected position but increased the number of magistrates by at least one part-time magistrate.  There is some question about how much judicial independence magistrates have.  Clearly, magistrates have complete independence from the voters, but less independence from the City Council.  So while even though magistrates are technically in the judicial branch (as I was reminded), and while they make their own decisions on how much of a fine to assess, there has historically been a lot of pressure on magistrates who cut parking and traffic fines more than the Legislative Branch desires.  Because the majority of fines appear to be assessed at the prehearing stage, the public rarely if ever gets to see these proceedings until the media come out with a report after a public records act request.  Magistrates do not feel comfortable commenting because of judicial rules, and the public doesn't really get to hear anything at election time because magistrates don't stand for election, even though many work in the judicial branch full-time mostly doing mitigation hearings and prehearing conferences.  So even though magistrates are technically free to impose any penalty or no penalty, they have come under a lot of fire for going too low and not collecting enough, and then some magistrates can't talk about it both for judicial rules and I suspect out of some fear that the Council could easily cut their positions in a new budget.  Many prehearing conferences contribute to the appearance of a lack of transparency in the proceedings (one can't walk in on a prehearing like going into any other courtroom in the Seattle Municipal Court).  Are magistrates collecting enough?  Too much?  Are they ruling fairly?  How does anyone know?  

The system for disposing of traffic infractions could be better.  I am not a fan of prehearing conferences in cases involving moving violations and I am not thrilled with some of the procedures with regards to the disposition of these cases.  While I do not blame individual magistrates for procedural problems that have gone on for a long time, there is vast room for improvement in the process.  To that end, the Seattle Municipal Court is working on changing forms to make them more clear and there will be a Bench-Bar meeting in Seattle this month.  These are steps in the right direction.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many drivers call me after they have been stopped by the police in the State of Washington and after the police have issued traffic tickets.  Every traffic ticket, which usually contains one or more listed infractions, often cause feelings of stress, fear, annoyance, and humiliation for most people.  Traffic infractions also can have many serious, collateral consequences.  For the drug rep or truck driver, a speeding ticket can mean higher insurance rates for an employer and individual.  It can also mean the loss of a job for the employee.  For the 16 or 17-year-old driver, a couple infractions can mean a license suspension, not to mention enormous insurance premium increases.  These examples are just a couple highlights and are not meant to be an unlimited list of consequences.  But the rights drivers have are mostly fairly standard around the state, if not entirely understood by the general population.  In this post I want to go over a few of the rights drivers, passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians have in dealing with a traffic infraction.  All groups above have the same rights, although the collateral consequences for an operator of a motor vehicle are often different than a pedestrian or member of another class.  These rights are not meant to be an exhaustive list and any individual cited for a moving violation should consult an attorney experienced in handling traffic infraction cases.  You go to a doctor when you get ill and you might see a plumber to fix a plumbing issue.  Hiring a lawyer for a traffic ticket will often put you ahead of the pack and can be of great economic value.  

Remember that Washington State traffic infractions are noncriminal violations of law defined by statute and punishable by a fine.  What follows are some observations about the differences between contesting, mitigating, and appealing.  Hopefully readers of this blog will find some useful information.  

• Contesting an infraction:  Every driver can contest a traffic infraction.  The driver should read the ticket, front and back if the ticket is green, and the front if the ticket is white.  White tickets are usually "e-tickets," or electronic, and special care should be given to these notices because sometimes these "tickets" are not really infractions, but rather a notice, or summons, requiring a person to appear in court.  If that's the case, do not pass go, as you are not in infraction land anymore, and the case is a criminal offense and there are different rights and responsibilities for the individual.  But for a traffic infraction, every individual can contest (challenge) the ticket, and this is the only choice available on the ticket if an individual doesn't want a chance at an insurance company or employer seeing the ticket for several years (3 years for insurance companies, 5 years for employers in Washington on a final judgment that an individual committed an infraction).  A person must respond to the ticket within 15 days of the date the ticket was issued, or, if mailed, typically 18 days from the date the ticket was mailed to the defendant.   

• Mitigating an Infraction:  Most of the time a defendant doesn't need an attorney to mitigate an infraction.  Here, drivers are asking for a reduction in fine.  It is typically the second-worst choice (behind paying the infraction), because the driver is admitting commission of the offense without even looking at any of the evidence, and although some drivers qualify for reductions in fines, not all drivers do.  For example, sometimes judges are not allowed to reduce the fine.  This is true for school and construction zone tickets, to cite a couple of different infractions in which the Legislature has taken away judicial discretion in reducing fines.  Of course, a driver can still challenge (contest) the infraction if the driver requests a contested hearing instead of mitigation.  Another reason to not mitigate an infraction is that mitigating an infraction is the same as paying the infraction as far as showing up on your insurance goes.  Same for affecting a driver's record for a moving violation.  Occasionally, judges will reduce speed as well as the underlying fine, but this really doesn't help the driver very much.  Speeding, for example, is a still a moving violation.  Moving violations greatly affect drivers' insurance premiums and can affect the driving privilege (these consequences do not apply, however, for camera tickets in the State of Washington).  

• Appealing a Judicial Determination that an Infraction is Committed:  Many people confuse "contesting" from "appealing."  When a person contests an infraction, the individual is contesting the officer's determination that the individual committed the infraction.  Remember that this is a law enforcement officer's determination - it is not the final word on the ticket if a person contests the ticket.  The final word in a lower court is a final judgment by a judicial officer (a magistrate, commissioner, or judge).  Requesting a contested hearing must be done within the first 15 days after receiving the notice of infraction, or 18 days from the time the infraction is mailed.  With a request to contest, the person gets what most people would consider their "day in court" to challenge the infraction, or a time for an attorney to represent the person accused of the infraction in the first instance.  But what if a judge finds that you did it, that you committed the infraction?  Is there any recourse?  The answer is yes, all defendants have an appeal as of right, that is one chance as of right to go to a higher court to have the adverse decision reviewed.  However, very few judgments on infractions are appealed in the State of Washington.  This is partly due to the expense of appealing, which is usually more expensive than contesting an infraction.  This appeal as of right category is reserved for extraordinary infraction cases, and in Washington approximately less than 1 in 10,000 infraction cases get appealed every year.  There are probably many more bad decisions that should be appealed from lower courts, but most people just want their contested hearing, and usually that is enough.  It is extremely helpful to hire an attorney to contest a hearing (see above) because hopefully, with the use of an attorney, the individual will have no need for an appeal and will be able to obtain the benefits of wining at a contested hearing.  If, however, there is a need for an appeal, an experienced attorney will identify and preserve the important issues in a case for review by a higher court, should an individual wish to appeal the case.  

These rules apply for all infractions in the State of Washington, whether a person gets a ticket in Seattle or Sunnyside, Colfax or Kirkland.  These rules apply to various type of offenses, from speeding tickets to failing to yield the right of way and failing to signal.  Note that federal traffic offenses, such as speeding in a national park or on a military base, go to federal court and are treated very differently than state-level traffic infractions.  To see how these rules apply in a specific case, it is critical that a cited individual contact an attorney at the earliest possible time.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Mayor Mike McGinn wants to punish business districts and drivers in Seattle by raising hourly parking rates to the highest of any city in the U.S.  In addition, the Mayor is advocating the issuance of more tickets.  Plenty of people--residents and visitors alike--are upset about this move.  

But first a personal story, gentle reader.  A few days ago, I parked my car in Seattle’s Eastlake neighborhood.  After I left an appointment and returned to my car, I noticed one of Seattle’s finest—a parking enforcement officer (PEO) with an Interceptor motor vehicle—pulled up next to my vehicle.  As I was getting ready to hop in my car and drive away, the PEO yelled out to me and asked me: “Why are you parked in a bus lane”? 

I had to explain that I was not parked in a bus lane.  Our parking enforcement officer wanted to know how this could be, so I literally walked around my vehicle to the curb, pointed to the painted sidewalk demarcating the bus lane, pointed to my vehicle that was parked against uncolored concrete, and I explained to him that I was not in violation of any bus lane ordinance.  I also suggested—in my kindest and gentlest tone—that the PEO could write me a ticket, and I would subpoena him to court so that we could discuss the matter further, if he should like.  I wanted to give him options. 

The PEO was very pleasant (which is unusual) and asked me how the bus might get into the bus lane if a vehicle is parked next to it; however, this isn’t my problem, and the lane is long enough for a bus to easily get in and out.  The parking space is legal, King County Metro has buses that drive on city streets where the buses stand and park in bus lanes, and drivers parked nearby but outside the bus lane are—shocking as though it may be to Seattle’s parking enforcement community—legally parked.   

But Mayor McGinn supports zealous—overzealous—enforcement of parking laws, to the point where PEOs are actually issuing tickets to legally parked vehicles.  I know because I was about to get one such bogus ticket.  Forget the fact that parking tickets don’t affect auto insurance premiums like tickets for speeding, HOV, negligent driving, or failing to signal a lane change.  Mayor McGinn wants to punish drivers not to increase public safety, but rather to increase more revenue for the City and punish drivers who choose to work, shop, dine, and do business in Seattle. 

Mayor McGinn’s master plan, according to Chris Grygiel of Seattlepi.com:  raise public parking rates to a high of $4/hour, spend $28,000 for red light photo enforcement, and issue more tickets.  It makes no difference to the Mayor that total tickets are up 23 percent in the last five years or that fines are projected to increase 17 percent for all of 2010. 

One of the biggest problems with Mayor McGinn’s (some have called him Mayor McSchwinn) plan is that all drivers are asked to subsidize pedestrians and bicyclists.  Some may think this is a great idea, but the roads were not designed or paved for bicyclists, yet in Seattle we still allow bicyclists to use the parts of the roadway designed for motor vehicle travel (this may seem normal to most people, but there are locations where roadway use is much more restricted).  To be fair, I like helping pedestrians and bicyclists too, but I do not believe drivers should be treated as a third-class citizenry meant to pay for everyone else.  Charging drivers to throw down some paint to create bike lanes might make bicyclists safer, but narrower vehicular roadways, elimination of vehicular lanes, more Interceptor parking enforcement vehicles, and no decrease in the number of motor vehicles on the road do not ease congestion, traffic, or make riding a bike an easier mode of transportation.  Increasing parking rates in a bad economy also angers businesses and drivers alike.  This has the result of increasing traffic in neighborhoods such as Northgate and areas around the U-Village while also sending business outside Seattle, to places such as Bellevue and Redmond.  

And in case the Mayor didn’t notice, as I mentioned in a previous blog post Mukilteo voters want to stop red-light camera tickets and photo enforcement.  I do not believe Seattle voters, given the opportunity, would react any differently. 

Mayor McGinn calls his critics “conservatives”—apparently anyone who criticizes the City for not acting enough like a business.  But higher parking fees for greater congestion (which will be increased when shoppers flock to downtown stores after 6:00 P.M. to avoid $4/hour downtown parking rates) or anyone who wants to avoid the overzealous issuance of a parking ticket.  

Mayor McGinn's message:  Welcome to Seattle, here's an (undeserved) parking ticket before you leave. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

I've written before on Washington's new cell phone law that makes it lawful for the police to pull over and cite a driver for holding a cell phone or other wireless communication device to the driver's ear while driving.  The law does not ban speech or talking on a phone with a handsfree device while driving.  

While the police used to need another reason (a primary offense to stop a driver), the new law that takes effect on June 10, 2010 allows the police more power to stop drivers, as the Washington Legislature made a cell phone infraction a primary offense after the Legislature failed to do so earlier in the legislative session.  

One of the upsides of the new law is that it will probably not have a tremendous effect on the poor, who are probably less likely to own vehicles and cell phones.  Parents who want their children to not use cell phones while driving will be pleased to know that the new law prohibits any cell phone use while driving for drivers under the age of 18.  

One of the downsides, however, is the new law's dubious effect on public safety, as Erik Lacitis reports in the Seattle Times.

As reported by Lacitis, studies have shown that the problem with driving stems from driver distraction distraction and not whether a driver is holding the cell phone or speaking into a handsfree device.   

Senator Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way), believes the new law will save lives as drivers talking with a handsfree device will be able to have two hands on the wheel while being able to look left and right.

Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste believes that under the old, secondary offense law, drivers showed outright defiance.  3,000 tickets were apparently not enough in the last two years, and Batiste states that the WSP will be enforcing the new law starting June 10, 2010.   

It's difficult to ascertain whether the new law will encourage more talking on cell phones with handsfree devices and, possibly, increase injuries and deaths or whether the new law will actually save lives by decreasing collisions.  

Washington has had a primary offense seat belt law since 2002, and NHTSA reports that in 2008, Washington's seat belt use was the third-highest among U.S. states at 96.5 percent, trailing only Hawaii and Michigan.  While seat belt use reduces deaths from auto collisions, only time will tell whether a law restricting the manner of talking on a cell phone will decrease the loss of life.  

For now, drivers in Washington should know that starting June 10, 2010, police officers from Blaine to Bellevue and Seattle to Spokane will be enforcing the new law and issuing a lot of tickets.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Whether you decide to travel from Spokane to Seattle, Yakima to Yelm, or points in between during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, you will probably notice an increased police presence.  But rather than serve you some turkey and pumpkin pie, the police will be serving motorists with speeding tickets and other traffic tickets for such offenses as negligent driving, following too close, and improper lane change. 

The days preceding and following holidays are typically among the times of year when most fatality-collisions occur.  According to AAA, 2.1 million more travelers will be on the road this year during the hoilday weekend. 

Officers will not only be responding to collisions and looking for speeding, but also for drivers and passengers not wearing seat belts and also for cars with expired tabs. 

Of course, should you receive a ticket for a moving violation, you will want to fight it so that you can save money on insurance premiums and keep your driving record clean. 

Happy Thanksgiving and safe driving this holiday weekend. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Earlier this week Seattle Times reporter Danny Westneat wrote about his frustration and how his driving habits have changed--for the worse--since Seattle decided to put up red-light cameras.

Since drivers call me daily to talk about red-light camera traffic tickets that motorists have received in the mail (and no one has called me happy to have received such a gift), it is important to note that a red-light camera traffic ticket has no effect on insurance premiums, although if a driver is stopped by a police officer and cited for a red light violation, this latter type of violation does have consequences to insurance costs.

Seattle joins other cities like Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Burien, Federal Way, Fife, Issaquah, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Monroe, Moses Lake, Puyallup, Renton, Seatac, Spokane, Tacoma, and Wenatchee in having some form of automated traffic camera devices.

Westneat makes many good observations (more after the jump).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (12)
• Trackbacks

A forum on decriminalizing marijuana and making the offense punishable as a civil infraction will be the subject of an upcoming forum in Edmonds, the Daily Herald reports.  

My state senator, Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Queen Anne), will participate in a panel discussion with travel writer Rick Steves, former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and attorney and former White House Advisor Egil "Bud" Krogh.  It appears that Rep. Mary Helen Roberts (D-Lynnwood) might sign as a House sponsor.  

The idea is simple - treat low possessory amounts of marijuana like a speeding ticket or nontraffic civil infraction, save millions of dollars in incarceration and court costs, and bring in revenue (presumably millions of dollars) for people cited for marijuana possession as a civil infraction.  

What is less clear though are these items:  why the legislation proposes a $100 fine and why juveniles would get sanctioned criminally but adults would not.  

A $100 penalty for marijuana possession would be less than an HOV or lane change infraction, so perhaps legislators need to revisit the amount assessed for this proposed infraction, and whether the traffic version of a marijuana possession infraction would be a moving violation like possessing an open container of alcohol in a vehicle (which also carries a higher fine than $100).  

Second, it hardly seems fair that juveniles would receive detention ("juvy jail") for marijuana possession but adults would be able to pay a fine with no criminal sanctions.  Penalizing juvenile offenders more harshly than adults is unfair on its face nor would it be helpful for juvenile offenders who would have criminal records for marijuana possession when that same possession would be decriminalized if the juvenile were an adult.  

Third, the topic of marijuana decriminalization should be discussed in the broader context of our alcohol laws.  While decriminalization of marijuana could be a civil infraction for 19- or 20-year-olds, individuals this same age would still be charged as adults for the crime of minor in possession of alcohol.  Legislators should consider decriminalizing certain alcohol offenses.  Without certain changes, state law becomes inconsistent and appears to favor an illegal substance over a legal one, with a ticket for the illegal substance (marijuana) and jail time for the legal substance (alcohol possessed by an underage individual).  

I commend Senator Kohl-Welles for fostering a discussion on these important items.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Although this blog generally focuses on traffic infraction issues, I feel compelled to write a post about another category of civil infractions - dog violations.  Dog violations are issued by animal control officers.

Most citizens who go to court in the State of Washington go to courts of limited jurisdiction - that is, municipal and district courts that hear the bulk of our traffic infraction, misdemeanor, small claims, and dollar-limited civil cases. 

In general municipal courts are fairly small, but not Seattle Municipal Court.  Here, there are a dozen or so elected and appointed judicial officers hearing hundreds of cases each day. 

During one morning traffic calendar last week, I was in Seattle Muni, as I typically am each week.  But this was no typical day.  Prior to the bulk of speeding, red light, and following too closely infraction hearings, the City of Seattle, through its esteemed Rule 9 (law student) persecutor (who this blog will not name because he might enjoy unearned and undeserved publicity), decided it would spend the better part of an hour trying a defendant accused of 3 doggy infractions - off-leash and off premises violations. 

The events at issue apparently started when an animal control officer, the City's first witness, responded to a disturbance involving Mr. Tickles - a dog that allegedly strayed onto a neighbor's property.  The neighbor is Attorney Andrea Nicolaisen, who it appears was upset about a boundary dispute involving the defendant accused of the doggy infractions, and the fear that Oggy, her dog, had of Mr. Tickles. 

Remarkably, the only people who could keep poker faces during this farce of a court hearing were the defendant and Attorney Nicolaisen.  The judge, the animal control officer, and Rule 9 persecutor, the other attorneys in the room (including yours truly) had to laugh at the antics of Mr. Tickles.

But what is not a laughing matter is how the City and Attorney Nicolaisen, somewhat unjustifiably, made dozens of people sit in court for an hour over two neighbors' failure to resolve a boundary dispute, in what is really a fleecing of Seattle's taxpayer dollars.  To the City and Attorney Nicolaisen - this blog gives you two thumbs down. 

For entertainment value, this blog recommends that the next time you're flipping through channels and see the Washington Supreme Court on TVW, just think - you could have entertaining (if not wasteful) Seattle Municipal Court doggy violation hearings televised into your living room.  You really have to see it to believe it.  Contact your local cable provider immediately, and don't forget to mention Mr. Tickles.

UPDATE:  6/25/09 - SEATTLE

Attorney Andrea Nicolaisen wrote in to inform me that my previous post "got the facts all wrong."  Ms. Nicolaisen points out that it was her neighbor, Crystal Welch, who phoned animal control, and that Ms. Welch, the complainant, was actually cited.  This blog originally cited Ms. Nicolaisen as the complainant, when more appropriately she should have been identified as a very upset, complaining witness.  

Ms. Nicolaisen notes, however, that the hearing was " a three hour waste of [her] time" and she also notes that "after sitting there for 2 hours [yours truly was] so unable to get even the most basic facts correct."   Ms. Nicolaisen's view is not only inaccurate, but it needs to be supplemented by what transpired. 

Attorney Nicolaisen was subpoenaed by the City of Seattle for a non-traffic civil infraction hearing involving her dog.  She seemed to enjoy testifying against her neighbor.  She also did not have to testify, as a subpoena requires her appearance, but a subpoena does not require or compel her to speak or testify, let alone drag an entire courtroom into her neighbor's dispute.  However, that's exactly what Attorney Nicolaisen did.  Why Attorney Nicolaisen felt compelled to testify at a dog infraction hearing is beyond me.

I did not spend the entire hearing in the courtroom; rather, I attempted to get my own work done.  The sad part about the morning is that Attorney Nicolaisen and the Rule 9 Legal Intern failed to resolve the dispute in less than a couple hours.  Rather, Attorney Nicolaisen's dog Oggy and Ms. Welch's dog, Mr. Tickles, were caught in the middle of a human dispute.  Even though the City won the hearing, as an observer I blame the City (and partly Ms. Nicolaisen) for the delay on the calendar.  

I wish Attorney Nicolaisen and Oggy well in their future endeavors.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seattle Times and the Seattle PI recently reported an incident involving a Seattle Police Department lieutenant who was arrested for DUI on November 23 after a Washington State Patrol officer observed a vehicle drifting on I-5. 

Of course, while Lt. Lowe is presumed innocent until proven guilty, it is noteworthy that Lt. Lowe supervised a 42-member Seattle police detail for President Obama's inauguration nearly two months after the officer's arrest.  The news articles describe a number of disciplinary problems Lt. Lowe has had in his career, yet Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, who may become the nation's drug czar, appears to tolerate this behavior by granting supervisory authority to Lt. Lowe.  Chief Kerlikowske also declined to comment and I wonder if he endorses Lt. Lowe's conduct. 

While the Washington State Patrol appeared to treat Lt. Lowe no differently than other suspects of DUI, it certainly begs the question as to whether police officers who receive traffic infractions such as speeding and improper lane change - or who get arrested for a criminal offense - receive special treatment by their police department supervisors. 

While other motorists who are found to have committed traffic offenses pay higher auto and life insurance premiums, arguably the taxpayers would be left to finance higher insurance premiums for Seattle police officers who get into trouble.  That, in and of itself, is troublesome. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the Seattle Times reports that the WSP will have extra patrols on I-5 in King County while road crews make repairs. 

The State Patrol claims that "Worker and motorist safety is always [the State Patrol's] top priority."  The second priority is likely issuing motorists tickets, as fines are doubled in construction zones.  

For those drivers traveling on I-5 in the Seattle area, you risk getting stopped and issued a speeding  ticket that can increase your insurance premiums and affect your driving privilege.  If you get such a speeding or other traffic ticket, don't panic - give me a call. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In one of the latest examples of charging more and providing less, the City of Seattle has decided to institute pay parking in the City's Fremont neighborhood, the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI reported this month. 

The City has decided to place 13 to 20 pay stations in Fremont, along with other time-restricted and residential parking zones. 

Jessica Vets, the executive director of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce, believes the City's move towards paid parking will hurt small businesses and Seattle citizens.  "This is a tax that has not been passed by the voters, that the Seattle City Council and the mayor are imposing on businesses, on residents and on Seattle citizens," says Vets. 

It's hard to disagree with Ms. Vets.  A parking ticket by one visitor to a retail establishment can certainly have an effect on that visitor's shopping patterns, and the business.  Less business means less tax revenue for the City.  Will the City make up for it with revenue from extra parking tickets?  Feel free to comment below. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seattle P-I reported earlier this month that 67 law enforcement agencies around the state will provide more officers through December 7 for seat-belt emphasis patrols.  Officers will be on the roads day and night looking for motorists and passengers who don't buckle up.  

The Washington Traffic Safety Commission spent over half a million dollars on this year's seat-belt campaign, with roughly $300,000 going to personnel for enforcement of the state's seat-belt law. 

Officials emphasize that seat-belt enforcement is not about issuing tickets but about saving lives.  Whether or not you believe that, and even if you believe that the state should not be mandating whether you or others wear a seat-belt (a valid opinion), there is certainly costs to all taxpayers when uninsured individuals get in collisions and the state has to pay for their medical care.  This alone should be reason enough to wear a seat belt.  If you choose not to, expect to be pulled over. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Several months ago, Seattle's mayor, city council, and police chief collaborated on obtaining Seattle's first "speed van," a $174,000 Chevy Uplander paid for by Seattle taxpayers.  

City officials are quite proud of this expense because they believe more people will be issued tickets and that speed cameras help reduce vehicular speed.  Only time will tell whether the speed cameras will reduce collisions. 

Speed van photo enforecment began last month.  For now, expect to be issued a $189 ticket if you speed and get picked up by the speed van. 

You can read more about the van and see a photo of it in the Seattle PI article.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a matter of weeks, Washington drivers will no longer be allowed to legally hold and talk on a cell phone while driving. As state, county, and local governments look to "protect" you, my gentle readers from yourselves and the public, they're also looking to take a few of your hard-earned bucks off you by having the police pull you over, delay you, and write you tickets. Don't let the government take your money.

Before you use your cell phone while driving, get a hands-free device for your cell phone. Hands-free cell phone devices are allowed and they are the new, permissible way to drive and talk on your cell phone. Hopefully the devices will save you some money as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (11)
• Trackbacks

In perhaps the largest targeting of red-light runners in the State of Washington, Seattle will soon add red-light cameras at 18 more intersections in 2008, more than quadrupling the number of intersections added in 2006-2007. Last year, the City gained more than $1 million from red-light cameras. Some Seattle officials think that stepped-up enforcement will make people safer, even though a City study noted that accidents per intersection INCREASED even after the City added cameras at four intersections in 2006, although mainstream media outlets such as the Seattle Times and the Seattle PI have failed to report this fact, according to thenewspaper.com , a journal of the politics of driving. What is clear is that the City stands to make millions of dollars off of red-light tickets this year. Unhappy about this? City Council Member Nick Lacata wants citizen tax dollars to pay for an additional 24 cameras in 2009 (why not an even hundred Nick?!?!?!). Seattle is not alone - Puyallup will add the cameras in February, with monetary penalties beginning in Puyallup in March. Lakewood and Lynnwood already use cameras for enforcement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In addition to the standard fine for a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) violation having been raised from $101 to $124, police are using citizen drives to enforce traffic laws. In the State of Washington, drivers can call 206-764-HERO to report alleged HOV violators. According to a news report in the Seattle Times, the Washington State Patrol will actually send out warning letters to vehicle owners whose vehicle license plates are spotted by other drivers in the HOV lane. If a warning letter doesn't work (maybe the WSP receives more complaints?), then the WSP will apparently "stake out" the location of the alleged violation in order to "catch the cheater in the act." Aside from the enormous amount of resources the WSP must be spending to "stake out" a location to catch a person allegedly committing an infraction, this creates a shift in police resources - now the police, who are so concerned about HOV violations, are out on I-5 rather than staking out car theft locations. In addition, the WSP is sending warning letters to motorists who own vehicles even though these same motorists might not have been driving the vehicles they own when the vehicle allegedly committed a traffic offense. If you've received a traffic ticket, give my office a call, we can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently the Washington Department of Transportation released data collected January 1 - March 31, 2007, that ranked the top locations for vehicles moving faster than 90 MPH based on the highest number of vehicles traveling 90 MPH or quicker. Of the top 10 locations, 6 of them were in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, in places including Issaquah, Fife, Seattle, and Tacoma. It is unknown whether every inch of state highway was tested, or whether western Washington was specifically targeted, or whether the top locations have a higher number of vehicles traveling 90 or over because more cars cross that area or if the vehicles traveling 90 or over actually amount to a higher percentage of speeding cars versus all cars that are traveling a given section of roadway. What is clear is that the State Patrol is stepping up enforcement (this means speeding tickets and other citations for traffic offenses such as negligent driving and reckless driving) in areas that it believes has a higher number of vehicles that speed.  This makes economic sense for the State Patrol - after all, the more tickets issued, there is arguably a better chance at committed findings and fines, all other things being equal. It is best for drivers to take notice of these stepped-up enforcement locations and if the unfortunate happens and you get a traffic ticket, give me a call, I can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This was the topic of a recent news story, which did not get the answer quite right. The short answer is generally no, not at this time, and drivers should not go rushing to the stores to buy GPS devices to counter speeding tickets. (The exception would be if you could bring in an expert to testify about the high accuracy of GPS as a speed measuring device - and even then a court in Washington would probably be reluctant to allow such new technology into evidence). Imagine this: you're driving a long, minding your own business, and Officer TicketCop pulls you over and he issues you a speeding ticket. He tells you that your car, according to his RADAR (radio detection and ranging) device, clocked your vehicle traveling 10 miles over the posted speed limit. Simple enough, right? Not exactly. You counter that you have a GPS system, which stated that your vehicle was traveling less than the posted speed. Can you use the GPS measurement to counter the officer's RADAR unit? Not really. The law is not developed for courts to agree on using GPS as a speed measuring device. RADAR, although it has a lot of problems, has been around for a very long time, and used properly, courts will allow a measurement of speed based on RADAR into evidence. But GPS is newer and based on new technology, you argue. Well yes, that's true, but from a court's perspective, you would need an expert on GPS to vouch for GPS's accuracy as a speed measuring device as well as how it is properly used. Assuming you win on that, you would still have to show that GPS is better than RADAR, and that your GPS measurement is more accurate than the Officer TicketCop's RADAR measurement, and that you employed the GPS device correctly. GPS is used for purposes other than speed, whereas a RADAR gun is used to measure vehicle speed (and as a reason for Officer TicketCop to give a lot of traffic infractions). One of the problems with a GPS system is the user - a user would have to show that the user's GPS measurement is accurate based on the way the user employed the system. Likely a user who is also the driver would have a tough time vouching for speed and vouching that the device was being used properly at the same time. Also, while a GPS device may be useful in measuring the distance a car has traveled, and average speed over a long distance (say point Seattle to point Tacoma), there is no indication that GPS will measure one or more speeds accurately over fixed, shorter distances (say 800 feet) in a matter of seconds. If you just received a speeding ticket or any other type of traffic infraction in the State of Washington, call me, I can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

When drivers receive civil infraction tickets in the State of Washington, drivers have three choices: 1. Pay the fine (you're admitting that you committed the infraction) 2. Request a mitigation hearing (you also pay the fine and admit to the infraction, but a kind judge might lower the fine, provided that's allowed for the type of infraction for which you were cited); 3. Fight (contest) the ticket. Many drivers, especially those who get a Seattle ticket, think that requesting a contested hearing will get them a contested hearing. Unfortunately, in a number of locations around the state (most notably Seattle), that's not exactly true. For those drivers who smartly fight their tickets, Seattle first schedules a prehearing conference. State law allows local courts to decide whether they want to hold prehearing conferences. What this means for drivers is an extra step and often a waste of time. A prehearing conference is the civil equivalent of a pretrial conference in criminal law. At the prehearing conference, drivers appear in front of a magistrate in an office. The magistrate will attempt to get the driver to essentially mitigate the infraction, thereby saving court resources and obtaining revenue for the city, county, and/or state. Occasionally, a magistrate at a prehearing conference will dismiss an infraction, but this is very rare and drivers should not expect this. What drivers should expect is that if they go to the prehearing conference, they will have to wait and NOT be able to have a contested hearing on that same day. The magistrate knows that you won't be able to have a contested hearing that day, but he/she doesn't tell you until the end of the prehearing conference that you will have to come back to court on another day for a contested hearing if you'd rather fight your ticket than "take the deal." Prehearing conferences are mostly a scam. Most drivers are unaware that when they request a contested hearing and want their day in court, they might instead get a prehearing conference, they won't be able to fight their tickets on the same day as the prehearing conference, and the driver who wants to fight has to return to court, often taking time off work. Luckily, you can save yourself the hassle of prehearing conferences by waiving them in advance of the hearing, or hiring an attorney experienced in fighting traffic tickets. If you have been issued a speeding ticket or you have been cited for another type of traffic offense, don't panic - just give me a call.

UPDATE:  OCTOBER 13, 2011 - I have updated this post here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

Although SpeedingTicketBlog does not venture too often onto the highways of nonmoving traffic tickets, readers should be aware that the City of Seattle Parking Enforcement Division issued citations in violation of the City of Seattle Municipal Code. If you parked on a legal holiday and you were wrongly issued a citation, you car might also have been impounded, and wrongly so. In response to a lawsuit filed last fall on behalf of drivers who were wrongly issued citations, the City of Seattle changed its parking rules. Â Still, the City might still owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages for the prior wrongful issuance of citations. The case is currently pending in King County Superior Court. For more information, read the Seattle PI's article here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Some people have asked me how speeding tickets came to be. On a lighter note, speeding tickets in Seattle have been issued since 1879, ten years before Washington enjoyed statehood. Back then, it wasn't the automobile in which people were riding; rather, "drivers" were speeding on horseback.

Walt Crowley, a Seattle historian, writes about speeding, horses, and electric cars:

"Seattle's first speeding ticket was issued to two horsemen in July 1879, 21 years before Washington state welcomed its first automobile on July 23, 1900, when Ralph Hopkins, the owner of the Woods Electric -- yes, electric cars are not a new idea -- drove his vehicle west from Chicago to San Francisco and then north to Seattle (with lifts from trains helping out here and there). By 1904, there were enough cars in Washington to warrant creation of the state's first Auto Club and establishment of the original State Highway Board the following year." (Source: HistoryLink).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last month, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that the Chief of the Seattle Police Department, with the blessing of the Mayor, will not hire another sergeant this year to investigate officer misconduct even though the City Council allocated $120,000 for that purpose. You can read the full story by clicking here. So why should you care? Because the Seattle Police Department is proud to instead have purchased 6 new Dodge Charger vehicles (sticker price to a consumer is $22,000 per car) with which the SPD is bent on stopping people who speed. Officer misconduct? No big deal according to the police. Speeding? Priority! Apparently, a regular patrol vehicle is not good enough anymore for the police to apprehend people. On May 4, 2007, the Seattle Times reported that one police officer is actually getting compliments on the new cars (did he get any compliments for ticketing people?). As a result of the creation of the SPD's new aggressive-driving squad, those who drive in Seattle should take notice that the new squad is looking for speeders. Specifically, the squad is looking for drivers who honk their horns (very aggressive), cut in and out of traffic, weave, and anyone who might be speeding. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars spent on the new sports cars for police and the salaries for the new squad's members, the SPD spent a mere $5,000 on marketing material to let the public know about the squad. But it's not only Seattle. Redmond and Monroe police, as well as the Washington State Patrol, are also using Dodge Chargers to apprehend those who are speeding. As the weather gets warmer, there are often more drivers and police on the roadways, and as the police need to justify the cost of spending your tax dollars on these expensive cars, expect to see a lot of people being issued speeding tickets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks