Posted: 8/5/2011 2:29:03 PM EDT
|
Yesterday I received a red light camera infraction in the mail. This was for failure to stop at a red light when making a right turn.
I see from reading the following forum topics, if I submit a Declaration of Non-Responsibility and not name the driver, it will be rejected. I was planning to fill out the Declaration, not name the driver, and write the following statement quoting the RCW and LMC codes highlighting the word "only". Is this a proper way to write a statement? Quoting RCW 46.63.075
(2) This presumption may be overcome ONLY if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner. Quoting LMC 11.18.030 Prima facie presumption.
A. In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under this chapter, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was involved in a stoplight violation, railroad crossing violation and/or school speed zone violation, together with proof that the person named in the notice of infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred. B. This presumption may be overcome ONLY if the registered owner, under oath, states in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody or control of some person other than the registered owner. (Ord. 2789 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2642 § 1, 2006) As you can see from the highlighted portion above, the law provides that the written statement or oral testimony, made under oath, is the ONLY means to overcome the presumption. The word "only" in statutory construction PRECLUDES any and all other alternatives. In this case, it precludes ANY OTHER means of overcoming the presumption. In fact, according to the law, no other proof SHOULD even BE acceptable. Nor any combinations of other proofs. In fact, to even ASK for other proof is to totally ignore the word "only" in the statute, the use of which makes it clear that the legislature's intention was to limit the ways the presumption could be overcome to just one. |
|
I did not fill out the Seattle City form. They were trying to circumvent the State law forcing me to name a driver. As you noted State law says nothing of that nonsense. August 2010 Reference Notice of Infraction #xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxIn accordance with SMC 11.31.090 E, I CavVet, the registered owner of a xxxxxxxxxxxx, Vehicle Plate # xxx 000, do state under oath in this written statement that the above described vehicle was in the care, custody and control of some person other than the registered owner. They sent me back a letter....  |
|
Quoted: but did you do it? I would advise him not to answer that on a public board no matter what his answer might be- the thieves in office may wish to twist his words. As you very well know I strongly believe character issues do matter when dealing with other people, not when dealing with a tyrannical government that has no problems trampling on your Creator endowed rights, intent on only stealing money from you and stripping away your freedoms. He, as have I, have clearly demonstrated the illegal and immoral tactics the government tries to use in coercing you to snitch on another person in this matter, despite the clear will of the legislature against such a tactic. I view our current local government as a a criminal terrorist organization, nothing more, and have no loyalty, sympathy or ground rules in dealing with them. |
|
It appears fairly clear that the legislature did not intend to require you to name the driver of the vehicle in order to have the ticket quashed, or they would have put it into the law. Because they did not put that requirement into the law (that you name the actual driver) it is not required by the state law.
However, it there is a municipal law that requires you to submit the name of the driver, then you will get the interesting task of having a higher court sort out which law rules. But I sort of doubt that a municipality will enact a law that they know is in opposition to the state law. But it could happen. If that is the case, then you should have an attorney help you out. And you will be getting into lots more money than simply paying the citation. I'm not a fan of photo tickets. There is too much that can go wrong with them for my liking. For example, if I'm going the speed limit on a surface street in the left lane, and someone zips past me on the right exceeding the speed limit, the camera could catch us both in the same frame. I would not be a happy camper if I got a citation because I just happened to be in the same frame as someone who IS exceeding the speed limit. |
|
Quoted: However, it there is a municipal law that requires you to submit the name of the driver.... Read OP again. He cites Lynnwood law, it mirrors state. The request for info is in a form letter the City sends out that says, we caught you now pay us or name the person. |
|
Quoted:
As you very well know [snip] indeed I do. In fact I still owe for for the advice you gave me once in dealing with my infringement on my right to travel I had a few years back that was handed down to me from tyranists and theives and was ultimately laughed out of their very own judicial establishment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
However, it there is a municipal law that requires you to submit the name of the driver.... Read OP again. He cites Lynnwood law, it mirrors state. The request for info is in a form letter the City sends out that says, we caught you now pay us or name the person. Sorry about the typo. My sentence should have read "However, IF there is a municipal law..." Some cities try to get around the higher laws by bluffing until someone appeals it and points out that state law supersedes the municipal law. Hence my intention was to say "IF" there is a municipal law... Sorry for the confusion. |
|
Thank you CavVet.
Upon carefully reading the docs they sent me, you are right. By not filling out their Declaration is the key. If you read the wording of their Declaration, you are submitting yourself to the part: "in the care, custody or control of another person who is listed below:". By not filling it out makes your declaration incomplete. "Please fill it out completely. If you fail to fill it out completely, you will be notified that the Notice of Infraction will remain in your name". They also try to trick you into selecting a hearing by stating: "If you do not wish to identify the driver, you should request a hearing and not fill out a Declaration of Non-Responsibility". So what I've done was type out my own Declaration of Non-responsibility. Stripped out their verbiage and typed out pretty much what you typed and added: "I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct." _________________ ________________________ (Date and Place)......(Signature) 
My Revised Declaration of non-Responsibility 
City's Declaration of Non-Responsibility 
|
|
I have it on fairly good authority that most cities will cancel your red-light ticket for basically any reason, and even if they don't cancel it most make no attempt to collect beyond the initial mailing.
I pretty strongly disagree with camera based ticketing of any kind. It has long been recognized by most local governments (including the enforcement arms of government) that traffic safety is best accomplished through engineering. Every time a collision is investigated by LE in WA a standard form is completed that includes a lot of information used by traffic engineers to determine what changes might need to me made in places where collisions happen a lot. This often includes adjusting the timing of lights or forcing a change in traffic patterns. It is a proven and very effective way to increase traffic safety. Everyone involved in the process except the politicians agree that the cameras accomplish nothing beyond generating revenue. I have even more heartache with speed cameras than I do with the red-light kind. There is no way the speed cameras are calibrated and verified using the same very stringent standards that apply to radar guns used by officers/deputies/troopers. Sometimes when a driver is being a real idiot it can make sense for a LE official to pull them over and maybe write a ticket However, handing out tickets automatically and without any discretion is going much too far. |
|
Thought I might interject some information into this discussion as this thread might be misleading to people. I would recommend this tactic ONLY if you weren't driving the vehicle. I would not look at this as a way to "beat the system" if you got a red light ticket while driving the vehicle. Once you sign the document "under penalty of perjury" stating you weren't driving the vehicle when you actually were, you have essentially commited perjury which is a felony in this state. Lets remember that the court has access to a nice photograph of your vehicle which is detailed enough to read your license plate. Odds are your ugly mug is probably visible in the driver seat as well. I wouldn't put it past a young, hard charging prosecutor to go after someone if it was clear they were in fact driving the vehicle.
Don't get me wrong as I'm not advocating for the use of red light cameras. I just don't want to see one my fellow WAHTF peeps taking bad advise and end up commiting a felony. There is many other effective ways to contest the ticket that don't require you to commit perjury. 
|
|
Quoted: Thought I might interject some information conjecture into this discussion as this thread might be misleading to people. Lets remember that the court has access to a nice photograph of your vehicle which is detailed enough to read your license plate. Odds are your ugly mug is probably visible in the driver seat as well. I wouldn't put it past a young, hard charging prosecutor to go after someone if it was clear they were in fact driving the vehicle. RCW 46.63.170 (google cache link, state website is down) (d) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate and only while an infraction is occurring. The picture must not reveal the face of the driver or of passengers in the vehicle.  |
|
Quoted:
I have it on fairly good authority that most cities will cancel your red-light ticket for basically any reason, and even if they don't cancel it most make no attempt to collect beyond the initial mailing . . . This does not apply to Lakewood–– the courts there are Only In It for the Money. The only way to get out of the ticket is to declare that you were not the driver. |
|
Section "G" of the law says that the photos are only available to law enforcement, or for use in proceedings regarding a citation. It would be interesting to look at ALL the photos to see if the actually can identify the drivers face. However, the law says that the registered owner is responsible for the citation unless they swear someone else was driving.
As my vehicles are registered to my wife and myself, how does the court sort that out? Obviously, we can't both be driving, and only one of us should have the citation on our record for running a red light. As neither spouse can be compelled to testify against the other, how would the court decide which one of us is responsible for the citation? As we both can't be guilty of the offense, and as neither of us can be compelled to testify against the other, how would they sort that out? Saying that we are both guilty would be illogical as it is impossible for both of us to have been driving. |