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

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

Why is it that as you're taking time off to be with friends and loved ones, there are more police officers on the road writing tickets?  

Often on holiday weekends in the Seattle area and in high-traffic areas like I-90 and I-5 in the State of Washington, drivers will notice an increased police presence.  Part of this has to do with a need for more police responders to deal with additional collisions that occur over high-capacity travel times, but the reality is that many police officers make EXTRA MONEY - yes, overtime - when they work certain holidays.  Part of the extra money is to get officers to work on certain holidays where they might otherwise take the day off, and as an increased incentive to many law enforcement agencies, the federal government will grant money to local jurisdictions to increase the police presence in traffic enforcement (read: more tickets).  

What the means for Jane and Joe Driver is that Jane and Joe just might end up with a speeding, lane change, stop sign, negligent driving, or other type of traffic infraction this weekend.  

The important thing to realize is that if you are the unlucky beneficiary of one of these traffic tickets, you are not alone.  You do not need to panic.  If you get a ticket in the State of Washington, you can call a traffic attorney who can help to maintain your driving privilege and keep your insurance rates low.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday the Washington House of Representatives reversed itself by passing the Washington Senate's version of a cell phone/texting bill, which the Governor is expected to sign.  

What does this mean to drivers in the State of Washington?  It means that if the bill becomes law (and it's really more a matter of when than if), police officers will be able to stop motorists who are holding cell phones and/or texting while driving without witnessing another offense.  Current law allows the police to issue traffic tickets to motorists for holding a cell phone or texting only if some other primary driving infraction (e.g., speeding, improper lane change) is being committed at the same time.  

Proponents think the new legislation will save lives; opponents see government intrusion and wonder why other activities such as smoking, eating, and putting on makeup are not similarly made primary offenses.  

As an attorney who deals with traffic offense cases every day, while I strongly support measures that make roadway users safe, I also believe in providing the driving public with incentives--especially economic ones--that will make drivers alter behavior in a positive way. 

The new legislation, while making cell phone and texting infractions primary offenses, prohibits the offenses from becoming part of a driver's record that is available to insurance companies.  Here, the Legislature creates a monetary penalty for the offenses, but says "hey, we don't want this offense on a driver's record, because even though we think this type of driving is so outrageous, and there is a major safety issue here that we must spend a ton of time with in this legislative session, we don't think it's really worth telling the public about or insurers."  Instead, the Legislature sends the following message:  the conduct is so unsafe that we don't want anyone to know the people who perform this unsafe behavior, so we will not punish through insurance increases anyone who breaks the law and we will not reward those who choose to obey the law.  

There's a reason that the word "law" is in the word "flaw."  The Legislature could have done a much better job by passing a bill that actually helps people who obey the restrictions obtain better insurance premiums.  After all, if the conduct is so dangerous, than clearly risky drivers ought to assume a greater financial burden.  But the Legislature didn't care about that, and instead chose expediency over substance, a common theme in this session.  

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the Seattle Times called the House of Representatives the "House of Wimps" in an editorial about the Legislature's failure to pass a distracted driving law.  I don't wholly disagree with the Times, but House members and senators are wimps not because they couldn't pass a comprehensive law, but rather because the bills lack any real incentive to improve public safety.  

A few years ago the Washington Legislature made texting and talking on a handheld wireless communication device civil traffic infractions punishable by a fine.  However, the Legislature made these infractions secondary offenses, meaning that police officers can only stop drivers who are allegedly committing some other, primary traffic violation.

Since these laws took effect, many citizens and some legislators have wanted to go a step further by making the texting/cell phone bans primary offenses.  Others, including some legislators who serve as police officers, criticized the move as going too far, at least as far as non-texting, verbal cell phone communication goes.  

What the Legislature wholly fails to address - and why I think the bills sponsored by Senator Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way) and State Representative Reuven Carlyle (D-Queen Anne) are inadequate - are incentives for the driving public to be better drivers.  If you buy the conclusion that texting and/or talking on a handheld wireless communication device, combined with driving, is dangerous - then why would you not want to punish the people creating the danger and reward your constituents who don't create the risk?  

The bills don't envision any reward/punishment scenario and as such, the bills might feel great but they don't really do anything for public safety.  

In fact, there is a built-in incentive for people to perform the very conduct  that legislators are trying to ban.  Why?  Because unlike drivers' other traffic offenses that are shared with insurance companies - and lawful drivers have to purchase insurance - cell phone and texting offenses are not shared and the Legislature has prohibited such communication of these offenses to insurance companies.  These offenses can still affect the privileges of intermediate (under age 18) drivers, but most of the driving public is not incentivized with any reward or punishment.  

If legislators really want to improve public safety AND help most of the driving public and their constituents pay less in insurance premiums, sponsors should strike the bills’ language that prevents employers and insurers from finding out about a person's driving offenses in this area.  

As there have been many comparisons to texting and cell phone offenses with DUI, if the comparisons are accurate (and I'm not arguing one way or the other that they are), it seems fitting that drivers who create risk by texting and/or holding a cell phone to their ears while driving should be readily identifiable to those who insure and employ these same drivers, whether it's a company attempting to measure risk or someone looking for a babysitter to drive their children to soccer practice.  

The safety and economic incentives are simple: if employers can minimize risk on the road by screening those drivers who have a history of these offenses, we will arguably have safer roads if more people are economically incentivized to curb conduct deemed risky or offensive.  

If insurers can identify drivers who create greater risk, then insurers can isolate risk to specific policyholders and policyholders who choose a more prudent way of driving will be economically incentivized to drive with their hands free of wireless communication devices if these drivers know they will pay less for insurance than the person who breaks the law. 

 Perhaps next year the Legislature can address the real issues with texting/cell phone legislation and debate the merits of a clean and meaningful bill.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

Sen. John Kerry's daughter will not be charged with DUI due to insufficient evidence.  Despite her public arrest after she was pulled over for an expired tabs violation, Los Angeles prosecutors have declined to go forward because, to put it bluntly, they have no case.  So at most Ms. Kerry gets a traffic ticket, a type which probably has no effect on her insurance premiums.  And Ms. Kerry will not have to make repeated trips to court to be exonerated.  

Sure, so Alexandra Kerry was driving a car with expired tabs.  So what.  One King County judge even admitted in open court to having had expired tabs.  Happens to many drivers.  But at least prosecutors in Los Angeles realized that Ms. Kerry is an upstanding citizen and that a tabs violation shouldn't lead to a DUI charge.  

It also helped that Ms. Kerry probably did not give anything of evidentiary value to the police, beyond a below the limit breath test at the police station.  The daughter or a former prosecutor, Ms. Kerry probably knew to not respond to police questioning, to invoke her right to silence, to invoke her right to a lawyer, and to not take roadside tests.  Congratulations, Ms. Kerry, your sound judgment saved the day.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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 (5)
• 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

It appears that on Monday, October 5, 2009, Bellevue will join the growing ranks of Washington cities to use speed cameras in an effort to obtain revenue from unwitting motorists.  Lake Forest Park began using the cameras earlier this year. 

Bellevue alleges that the cameras are part of a "pilot project to improve traffic safety," according to the Seattle Times.  Predictably, Bellevue stands to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.  At least Bellevue might be fiscally safer! 

Although these cameras will probably do nothing to improve safety, the cameras will have the effect of thousands of tickets being issued (and many if not all of them wrongly) to vehicle owners who receive tickets in the mail. 

Here's how it works:  You're dropping your child off at school, and a camera attached to a speed measuring device photographs your vehicle.  The vehicle's owner (perhaps your spouse) gets a ticket in the mail.  Actually, you might even get a few tickets in a day, because it will take time for you to realize that you've even been photographed, traveling, perhaps, 25 mph in a 20 mph zone. 

Don't like speed cameras?  Sponsor an initiative to ban them, or vote your elected officials out of office. 

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

Many drivers know - and many learn - that fighting a speeding ticket or other type of traffic infraction often means the difference between maintaining low insurance premiums and having insurance payments go through the roof. 

But what does it mean to police officers who to go to court?  Overtime. 

Last week I had the pleasure of going to court in Chehalis, Lewis County.  Not long before my client's hearing, I observed a contested hearing with another attorney and two police officers from Morton, the small, approximately thousand persons town and hub of eastern Lewis County located between Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens. 

Rather than file a declaration or affidavit to support the traffic infraction, two officers decided to show up to court, unannounced and without any prosecutor.  Investigation by yours truly discovered that the officers (yes, not one but two) decided that it was in their financial interest to go to court because the officers are able to accrue overtime. 

It's not a new discovery that some officers earn overtime by going to court, but there are two exceptional issues with this particular case.  First, it's unusual for two officers to come to court for one infraction.  Second, it's an incredible waste of money when taxpayers in a rural community like Morton (per capita median income at $16,275, 2000 census) foot the bill for fishing expeditions by police officers.  Overtime for the police officers' unrequired (and to my knowledge not demanded) presence would exceed the amount of any return from the infraction's bail amount.  This overzealousness, waste of time, and waste of resources by Morton police is another reason that drivers should feel empowered to fight unreasonable enforcement by fighting their tickets.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Recently the Seattle P-I published an article about a motorcyclist who was arrested for allegedly driving 164 mph in Oregon. Many drivers call my office to ask me if traveling a certain speed, such as 90 or 100 mph, constitutes reckless driving in the State of Washington. The answer is that any speed beyond  Washington's maximum speed limits could serve as prima facie evidence of reckless driving, which in Washington is a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The prosecuting authority would, however, have to prove the charge of reckless driving (which unlike a speeding infraction includes wanton and willful disregard of persons or property) to the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. So in Washington, if a driver is traveling 26 mph in a 25 mph zone, that person can be arrested (though it is unlikely and unusual). But if you're allegedly traveling 164 mph on a motorcycle, you are at high risk of getting arrested and charged with reckless driving. In most speeding cases, drivers are issued notices of infraction - that is, speeding tickets - which are civil infractions. The penalties for infractions do not include jail time, but the penalties do include monetary fines, higher insurance costs, and potential suspension or revocation of the driving privilege. But drivers in Washington should be aware that a police officer has the judgment call of citing a driver for reckless driving - and even arresting the driver on the spot - if the police officer believes the driver is disregarding the safety of persons or property. Getting stopped by the police can be a scary experience for many people, but luckily you have a lot of options and rights when you get stopped, cited, and even arrested. If you've received a citation and need help fighting it, give me a call, I can help.

UPDATE (NOVEMBER 9, 2008):

I realize the original post left out a few important points that I wish to clarify for my readers.  While officers maintain the "judgment call" of arresting certain drivers for reckless driving and citing other drivers for speeding infractions, I want to be very clear that an arrest for reckless driving does not mean a driver who was allegedly speeding is automatically guilty because the officer has chosen to make an arrest for reckless driving.  Although vehicular speed can in some cases amount to reckless driving, a driver can really no longer be lawfully convicted of reckless driving by evidence of speed alone where there is other evidence that a jury can weigh with regards to the offense, even though RCW 46.61.465  states that speeding shall be prima facie evidence of driving a vehicle in a reckless manner.  I have updated the original post to include the words "wanton and willful disregard of persons or property" with regards to reckless driving in order to avoid any confusion between speeding and reckless driving.

In 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a King County conviction involving two vehicular assault charges.  The Court reviewed Washington's reckless driving statute  because driving a vehicle in a reckless manner was the predicate to the appellant's assault convictions.  State appeals had been exhausted, a defendant's constitutional right violated, and the defendant-appellant remained in jail. 

The Court stated:

But instruction number 7 isolated speed as the only circumstance needed to permit the jury to find reckless driving and thereby convict Schwendeman. The jury was told, in effect, that it could ignore all the other evidence, consider only the evidence of Schwendeman's speed, and if [the jury] found [appellant] was exceeding the speed limit, that was enough to convict him--not of speeding, but of reckless driving.
 

"By focusing the jury on the evidence of speed alone, the challenged instruction erroneously permitted the jury to" convict the appellant without allowing the jury to consider all of the other evidence. 

In short, the Court differentiated between speeding and reckless driving, and the Court reversed the state courts and ordered respondent to release the appellant from the King County Jail unless appellant could be granted, within a reasonable time, a new trial. 

The case is Schwendeman v. Wallenstein, 971 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1992).  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Last week the AP picked up a story from the Southwest Washington Columbian newspaper about the WSP's increased frequency of issuing speeding tickets to motorists in Washington. Not only is the WSP issuing more traffic tickets, the WSP has incentives to do so:  some of the money from ticket fines are used to fund the agency and the agency won an award from the International Association of Police Chiefs for the best state police agency of its size when the WSP's speeding ticket total exceeded the total from the previous year. Some interesting statistics found in the article:

• Snohomish County and Clark County have the highest number of tickets issued per mile on state and federal highways (it's unclear whether these counties beat out other states or if state highways refer only to Washington)
• The WSP issued 280,000 speeding tickets in Washington in 2006, an increase of 55,000.  These tickets are also only for speeding.  These numbers do not include other types of traffic offenses and this number does not include the hundreds of thousands of tickets issued by municipal police departments and  county sheriffs' departments.
• In the first half of 2007, troopers issued more than 165,000 speeding tickets
• Although tickets are up, fatalities were up 23% on Washington highways in the first eleven months of 2007.
• Troopers in Asotin County, in the far southeast corner of the state, issued only 155 tickets for the first half of 2007.
• Spokane County ranks 7th highest among Washington counties for speeding tickets issued.
• Of all Washington counties, Adams County has the highest number of WSP speeding tickets per 100 residents.
• King County and Pierce County are in the bottom third of Washington counties for WSP speeding tickets when number of residents is considered.
• Motorists now receive speeding tickets in 60%-65% of traffic stops, up from 44%, a 36%-48% increase.
• The WSP is aggressively searching to fill 86 vacancies for its "field force" - the troopers who give traffic tickets to motorists.

The bottom line is that a higher number of speeding tickets means more more people will probably pay their tickets, resulting in increased insurance premiums and tarnished driving records. This is why it's critical to have an experienced traffic attorney fight to keep your driving record clean and your insurance costs low.  If you received a speeding ticket or ticket for another type of traffic offense, call me today - help is only a phone call away.

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

Beginning January 1, 2008, drivers in the State of Washington face a ticket if caught reading, writing, or sending a text message while driving.  This especially will affect  drivers who work at Microsoft and other high-tech companies as these drivers often employ wireless technology while on the road. There are a few exceptions (affirmative defenses) to committing this infraction, such as sending a message to summon help in an emergency, but many if not most drivers caught texting while driving will face a ticket. However, there is some good news about this type of ticket, and some bad news. The good news first - this type of ticket (or infraction in legal lingo) is a "secondary infraction," meaning that a police officer has to have another reason to pull you over (speeding, unsafe lane change, etc.).  Also good news is that state law prohibits this type of infraction from being reported to insurance companies. So what's the bad news?  If you get cited for texting while driving, you'll likely end up cited for a second infraction - that is, the speeding ticket or driving on the shoulder ticket or other type of primary moving violation that got you pulled over in the first place.  Now you'll have two infractions to deal with and one that can affect your insurance. If you should receive a texting ticket with some other type of violation, please call me for a free consultation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Police in several towns in King and Snohomish counties are toughening their approach to immigration (even legal immigration!) by arresting drivers that police suspect of being illegal, the Seattle Times reported. Take the case of Jose Luis Diaz: he was pulled over for speeding and detained by authorities for 8 days before he could present the proper paperwork to an immigration judge.  In fact, Mr. Diaz was released after he was able to show that his wife is a U.S. citizen and that he is in the process of obtaining legal status.  Of course, Mr. Diaz's arrest did not come before he lost a good job (and good wages). Other drivers who are going to pay parking tickets ended up being detained by immigration agents.  This is happening in places such as Pacific, Lynnwood, and Bothell. If motorists do not take care of their tickets, these same drivers will have a tough time renewing their drivers' licenses, working for American  businesses, and maintaining insurance. If you received a speeding or other traffic ticket and you are worried about your legal status, you can still fight your ticket without going to jail or being detained by immigration authorities.  Give me a call if you want help fighting your ticket.

• 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

A new law that will make it easier for the police to issue a traffic ticket and impound (the fancy legal term for legally restraining) your vehicle will take effect on Sunday, July 22, 2007. Although the Legislature previously allowed the police to impound a vehicle for alleged criminal law violations and other circumstances (for example, the vehicle was reported stolen, or the vehicle is occupying a restricted zone), this new law allows the police to seize a vehicle if the vehicle is on a public street AND the vehicle has an expired registration of more than 45 days. BEWARE: This law change means that a police officer who pulls you over while you are driving, presumably so that your vehicle becomes parked on a public roadway, could ticket you and impound your vehicle if the registration is expired long enough. It could mean that if your vehicle is parked on the street outside your home, and you've not updated your tabs, your vehicle would be subject to impoundment if your tabs are expired for more than 45 days. Avoid the costly expenses of obtaining a traffic ticket and paying impound fees. Keep your registration up to date and if for some reason you cannot keep your registration up to date, move your vehicle onto private property.

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

According to a PEMCO Northwest Insurance poll released last month, Washington drivers who have household income of more than $75,000 a year are more likely than those of household income below $75,000 to speed and talk on a cell phone. Among those drivers who are more likely to speed, the poll found that these drivers are under-55 males who earn at least $75,000 with one or more children at home. The least likely speeders? Empty-nester females over the age of 55 who earn less than $75,000, as well as single drivers without children. But here's what the poll doesn't show: whether the more likely speeders are actually more likely to get pulled over and cited for a speeding ticket or another traffic offense. A conclusion in the poll is that one would think that drivers with children would slow down and obey the speed limit, "helping to ensure they'll be around to raise their kids." However, the poll says nothing about whether parents are more likely to be involved in fatal collisions or that the absence of fatal collisions will help parents be around to raise their kids any more than quitting smoking or abstaining from trans-fats. What is more probable is that PEMCO and other insurance companies will use this and other similar data as an excuse to raise insurance rates for certain groups of people. It could be that under-55 male drivers with higher income, especially those who receive a speeding ticket, will see a remarkable rise in their insurance rates. Those drivers concerned about insurance rates would be wise to fight their tickets.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

Although we often talk about speeding tickets and traffic offenses here at home in the State of Washington, I wanted to take a few moments to reflect on traffic tickets abroad, and the rights we enjoy here at home. Yesterday marked America's 231st anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. Each July 4, we celebrate everything that is great about America - our food, our flag, our freedom. But 231 years later, we still have it better in America than our brothers in Britain. Just last week, two British traffic rebels regretfully lost their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the court that Europe created to hear cases from citizens of member countries that traditionally have been unable to stay out of wars with one another. The issue in this case was the right not to incriminate yourself - a right so basic that we've had it in America since 1791. The idea for due process in the Fifth Amendment apparently was a British one stemming from the Magna Carta in 1215, but apparently what a fundamental right is in America doesn't really exist in (it's not so) "Great" Britain, or the rest of Europe for that matter. Here's what happened - Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran owned cars that were caught speeding by traffic cameras (not the police, mind your gap). Neither man would say who was driving their vehicles (O'Halloran admitted to driving but later retracted his statement), claiming a right to silence and a right against self-incrimination. We call that the Fifth Amendment here, but again, these individuals are British. The Court ruled against the men, 15-2, reasoning that if the men could "prove" that they didn't know who drove their cars AND if they could not be expected to know, they would then not be punished under British law. Wow. What an uphill battle - in Britain you're guilty until you prove you're not. I think there was a war over that! At the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., sunlight shines on a quote in the interior frieze below the dome: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." It is fitting that we remember that while we are free to not incriminate ourselves and to fight our traffic tickets here in the United States and in the State of Washington, our European ancestors do not enjoy that right. As we reflect on the basic rights we enjoy here at home, the words of Mr. Francis, who lost his case last month, is important to keep in mind: "The fight for freedom goes on. We can't allow the tyrants, who are taking away our rights, to succeed. They have to be stopped." Very Jeffersonian. Happy Independence Day. I hope you had a great 4th.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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

As local suburbs become strapped for cash, police are issuing more traffic tickets, especially speeding tickets. Take Fircrest, for example. Fircrest is a 1.5-square-mile Tacoma suburb of approximately 6,000 people situated between Tacoma and University Place. Unfortunately for drivers, Fircrest's elected officials are supportive of an increase in traffic citations. According to the Tacoma News Tribune, police issued a record number of traffic citations - upwards of 3,400 - from 2005 to 2006. Criminal citations are up a whopping 90 percent in the same time period! Officers, such as Police Chief John Cheesman (yes, that's really his name), are supported by $47,000 in overtime pay so that they may continue their extra patrols. Yes, officers are actually paid extra money to issue traffic tickets. Chief Cheesman recommends that speeders need to "slow down or go around" Fircrest. Apparently he is not very business-friendly and will not be heading Fircrest's Chamber of Commerce any time soon. Fircrest Mayor David Viafore is also "extremely proud" of the patrol program. If you have been one of the unfortunate recipients of a speeding ticket or other traffic citation in Fircrest, give me a call, I can help.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• 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.

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

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) recently signed legislation sponsored by Delegate David Albo (R-Fairfax), a traffic attorney and member of Virginia's esteemed House of Delegates. Mr. Albo has been known to remind people that he occupies the seat of George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights. Del. Albo thought it was a great idea to raise speeding ticket costs for driving as little as 15 MPH over the limit. Such a ticket could cost a driver $2,500 in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Virginia drivers get the added "bonus" of paying a $1,050 tax. Luckily, Washington drivers can breathe a sigh of relief that we do not yet have to face $3,550 speeding tickets in the State of Washington. Unfortunately, the increased costs in insurance that a traffic ticket or several traffic tickets can bring make driving a real headache, if not impossible, for many Washington drivers. If you recently received a traffic ticket in the State of Washington, I can help. Please call me for a free consultation.

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

Often I receive phone calls from citizens who have been issued a traffic ticket and/or arrested not because of anything these citizens were doing while driving, but because they were passengers in vehicles that were stopped for something totally unrelated to what the police officer is now alleging against the passenger. This begs the question: As a passenger, do I have the same right as the driver to challenge a traffic stop? Now you do. On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a passenger has the same right as the driver to challenge a traffic stop. The legal term is called standing, and now passengers have standing to challenge a traffic stop. 47 states and 9 federal circuit courts already held that when a car is pulled over, the passenger is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes--in other words, the passenger, as well as the driver, do not feel free to leave. However, California, Colorado, and the State of Washington have in the past held that passengers are not so seized. This most recent Supreme Court decision brings these three states in line with the rest of the country, and readers of this blog who are Washington drivers from Seattle to Spokane should be especially pleased. For those of you who are interested in this particular case, it's called Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120. Here's a brief description of the major facts and the procedural history: A police officer in California, Officer Brokenbrough, illegally stopped a car that had a temporary operating permit. The officer knew that a renewal registration form was being processed, but he stopped the vehicle anyway. When he stopped the car, he recognized one of the passengers as "one of the Brendlin brothers," and one of the brothers was wanted on an arrest warrant. After other officers arrived, Officer Brokenbrough ordered Brendlin out of the car at gunpoint. Upon completing searches incident to arrest of the driver and passenger Brendlin, officers searched the car and found tubing, a scale, and other methamphetamine production components. The officers also found contraband on the driver. Brendlin moved to suppress all these items but the trial court found the stop lawful and the trial court denied the motion. Brendlin pleaded guilty and received four years in prison, subject to an appeal. Brendlin won his appeal at the Court of Appeal of California, but the California Supreme Court reversed and depublished the Court of Appeal opinion. The Supreme Court of the United States granted cert to decide whether a traffic stop subjects a passenger, as well as the driver, to Fourth Amendment seizure. As I noted earlier, the Supreme Court held that indeed, a passenger is also seized. The Court vacated the decision of the California Supreme Court, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. Passengers can now rest a little easier in knowing that if their drivers are stopped, both driver and passenger will enjoy the same right to challenge the stop under the Fourth Amendment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

We've all been there - in the car with a loved one. But is it lawful to "hook up" with the driver of a vehicle? Last week, a Washington State Trooper pulled over the driver of an alleged drifting SUV on I-90. The vehicle's occupants were naked, leading the Trooper to believe that an act of physical intimacy had occurred while the vehicle was in motion. In this case, the driver was charged with DUI and the passenger with being a minor in possession of alcohol. However, the couple were not cited under the "embracing" statute. But what if the couple had been hooking up while the car was moving? In Washington, "Embracing Another While Driving" is actually considered prima facie evidence of reckless driving, a gross misdemeanor that is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine. The operator must have "in his or her embrace another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of such vehicle." It seems, however, that a passenger could embrace an operator, as the passenger is not the operator of the vehicle, and hence the passenger is not embracing and driving at the same time. So if you're a driver in Washington, do not embrace others while driving, and if someone embraces you while driving, drive carefully!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By the end of July, drivers who are stopped will see the costs of citations increase. A typical fine of what was $101 at the beginning of 2007 will increase to $124. The $1,050 penalty for not yielding to an emergency vehicle will also increase, as will most other traffic offenses. Unfortunately, there isn't much the public can do. The Washington Supreme Court and the State Legislature are driving the increases to keep pace with inflation, to pay for $50 million in computer upgrades, and to help people who suffer from traumatic brain injuries and their families (although it appears as though people with brain injuries will get less state money than will be collected to pay for computers, but that's a different issue). Whether these increased penalties are needed for state programs is questionable when more police are being hired, more drivers are moving to the state, and more tickets are being issued. In 2006 alone, police in Washington issued more than one million traffic tickets, resulting in over $110 million in fines. The police, the legislature, and the courts know that most people will just roll over and pay their tickets, giving these governmental bodies an extra incentive to charge you more for the same offenses. Fight back and fight your traffic ticket!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Most people don't make a federal case out of a traffic ticket, but some people have no choice: Sahneewa Trimble is once such person. If you are issued a traffic ticket on federal property, such as at Fort Lewis Army Base in Tacoma, you will have to go to federal court if you wish to fight the ticket. In some cases, you will have to appear in federal court even if you don't want to fight the ticket. That is because federal traffic matters are often not infractions that one might receive on state highways, but many federal traffic citations are "petty offenses," for which an offender could serve up to 6 months in jail. In Ms. Trimble's case, she received six citations (some of them fairly serious). A U.S. Magistrate Judge in Tacoma dismissed two of the six citations, but the Magistrate imposed $25 penalties on three of the remaining ones. Not only had Ms. Trimble believed that she was excessively charged - more than other drivers who did the same thing on federal property that day - but she believed the $25 penalties were excessive, especially when others appearing in court on the same day were not assessed these penalties. Ms. Trimble appealed to a U.S. District Court Judge, who overruled her objection. Then, Ms. Trimble filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit over an amount in controversy of $75. Last Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court. Judge Berzon, writing for the majority, wrote: "We reverse - demonstrating, again, that our Constitutional principles protect against monetary injuries large and small." In Ms. Trimble's case, the penalty fees were imposed on her arbitrarily based on the type of form on which the ticket was printed, and therefore the fees violated the equal protecton principles incorporated into the Fifth Amendment. As Judge Berzon observed, the imposition of the fees were arbitrary enough that it would be akin to this: people who were issued with tickets on Wednesdays or who were issued tickets with black ink had to pay the fees, but people who got blue-ink tickets or tickets on Fridays would not have to pay the fees. Such an abitrary imposition of fees is irrational, and violates an individual's Fifth Amendment protections. The case is United States v. Trimble, No. 06-30298, and the ruling in this case is one more reason why you should fight your traffic ticket!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Remember the VCR? Your first computer? Your first cell phone? These technological advances allowed you to make your life more enjoyable and/or simpler. But did you think airplanes were only used for travel? Not in the State of Washington. Here, police in airplanes could land you in jail. This is how it works: Police fly in airplanes, which you as a taxpayer fund, so that police can communicate with citizens who are driving so that citizens can call in "drunk drivers" and the police can stop them. In Snohomish County, if you change lanes too quickly, drive too fast or slow, you are at risk of getting stopped by the police. This is because a driver on the road can use his/her cell phone to call the police. In turn, this anonymous citizen report will be sent to the police on an airplane. Police in the air will then direct police on the ground to make a traffic stop. All based on your fellow citizen, who the police encouraged to phone in impaired drivers. If you're not drunk, but instead you were just speeding or traveling too slow, you may still be stopped. In many ways, the officers will have an incentive to give you a ticket - after all, fuel for airplanes and officers' salaries are expensive, and police officers need to justifiy these expenses for continued funding. Beware of the eyes in the sky, and happy driving which you focus on the road.

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

A new study that was released yesterday from the George Mason University Economics Department shows that out-of-towners are more likely to get a ticket during a traffic stop. The study was conducted in Massachusetts and showed that out-of-town drivers (this may mean out-of-state drivers) were at approximately 2/3 higher risk of getting a ticket. However, police officers in towns that are dependent on tourism dollars might write less citations to out-of-state drivers. I have not seen a similar study conducted in the State of Washington, but the moral of the story is this: be extra careful if you're an out-of-state driver and/or you have out-of-state plates, as your proximity to the courthouse and the officer's perceived ability of whether you will fight the ticket might weigh heavily on the officer's mind when deciding whether to issue you a traffic ticket.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks