Washington Traffic Law Blog

Severe Penalties For Traffic Tickets Punish Teenage Drivers

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 01 May 2012 09:14:59 -0800

When a driver gets pulled over in Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, or some other location and a police officer cites the driver for a traffic ticket, whether it be for speeding, negligent driving in the second degree, failure to yield, or some other type of traffic offense, paying or mitigating the ticket can have a detrimental effect on the driver’s insurance while leaving a mark on the driving history. Too many marks on the history can mean a suspension and, in some cases, a revocation of the driver’s license. But for intermediate driver license holders—those drivers who are 16 or 17—as well as permit holders who are age 15, the consequences of paying or mitigating a ticket are much more severe and add up more quickly.

In the State of Washington, drivers who are under the age of 18 operate vehicles under special rules. While these rules are designed to protect the public safety, the rules also have much more dire penalties for young drivers, as well as their parents. For parents, the penalties for a child’s violation of these rules are mostly financial, with increased insurance premiums.

Let’s look at a few of the rules and the penalties for violating IDL restrictions. For the first six months of driving or until an intermediate driver license (IDL) holder turns 18, whichever occurs first, a driver under the age of 18 is prohibited from operating a motor vehicle with passengers under the age of 20 who are not immediate family members. After the first six months of driving, the restriction turns from zero non-immediate family members to up to three non-immediate family members. After the first 12 months of driving, the restriction on passengers is lifted provided that the driver has not been in an accident (whether involving one vehicle or more than one vehicle) and has not been convicted of a traffic offense under RCW 46.61.

The IDL driver cannot drive between 1 A.M. and 5 A.M. unless with a parent, guardian, or licensed driver aged 25 or older. The IDL driver may not use a cell phone while driving except under very narrowly-defined exceptions.

So what are the penalties for violating the IDL restrictions? First, violating the restrictions in RCW 46.20.075, the IDL statute, are traffic infractions under RCW 46.20.267. These violations are in addition to any other potential violations, and include seat-belt tickets, texting tickets, speeding tickets, and other types of violations under RCW 46.61.

Furthermore, on the first such conviction, the IDL driver’s parent or guardian will be sent a warning letter by the Washington Department of Licensing. On the second conviction, the driver faces a suspension of the driver’s license for six months, unless the driver turns 18 first. Finally, upon the third conviction, the driver’s license is suspended until the age of 18, no matter how long the suspension. It could be 3 months, it could be as long as 22 months just for the IDL restriction and notwithstanding any other type of suspension or revocation.

In addition to having a tarnished driving record, the driver and his or her parents face much higher insurance premiums. If you are an intermediate driver and you have received a traffic ticket, or you are the parent of an intermediate driver who just got a ticket, an attorney experienced in fighting traffic offenses can help. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you must pay the ticket; seek legal assistance immediately and keep the driving record clean and your insurance premiums low.

How "Minor" Speeding Tickets Became Frequent Offenses With Major Consequences

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:59:48 -0800

Last week I was in Monroe, Snohomish County during one of my frequent visits there to fight some speeding tickets on behalf of my clients. I had the pleasure of visiting the courtrooms of the Honorable Steven Clough and the Honorable Patricia Lyon, the two sitting district court judges of the Evergreen Division of the Snohomish County District Court. Judges Clough and Lyon are two of the best district court judges in our state: theses judges listen to attorneys, think before making rulings, and fairly apply the law.

During my visit to Judge Clough’s courtroom for a contested hearing calendar, the State’s prosecutor and a defense attorney engaged in some argument over the amount of evidence needed to convict a defendant of speeding. Judge Clough explained that he had assumed his position on the bench when speeding offenses were criminal offenses in the State of Washington and that a great debate ensued prior to the Legislature’s decriminalization of most traffic offenses in 1981. At the time, the police were complaining that they were spending too much time in court on “minor” traffic offenses that were criminal, and if the Legislature decriminalized these offenses, the police wouldn’t have to be in court as much. San Francisco was doing the same thing with fire code violations, so why shouldn’t the State of Washington do the same thing? Eventually the Washington Legislature followed in San Francisco’s footsteps and changed the classification of most traffic offenses from crimes to civil infractions.

In explaining his ruling that opinion evidence alone is not enough to convict a driver of speeding and that he had been reversed by the Superior Court 15 years earlier for holding otherwise, Judge Clough brought up an important point: these offenses are “minor” to whom? Would decriminalization make traffic tickets any less important to the person who is stopped by a police officer and issued a speeding ticket? In the last 30 years, the police still spend a lot of time in court and traffic infractions are not minor to the people who get them.

In addition to Judge Clough's observations, I offer the following considerations: given the increased frequency of traffic infraction filings in the State of Washington, are these tickets “minor” to the people who face increased insurance premiums for auto and life insurance? What about the teenaged, intermediate driver license holder who faces a long suspension of her driver’s license and can’t driver to her summer job? What about the truck driver whose employer might terminate his employment? Or the single mother who, given increased premiums, will not be able to continue to drive her children to soccer games? Are these considerations minor?

Although the Legislature no longer authorizes judges to impose jail on civil infractions (though some judges will impose jail time if the offenses violate probation on a criminal offense), the consequences of civil traffic offenses are not minor. The offenses carry significant financial and major lifestyle consequences for those drivers who receive traffic tickets and don’t do anything to challenge the offenses. If you have received a traffic ticket, it is important to consider all of the consequences and contact my office or another experienced professional who can help with these offenses before you make a decision that could adversely affect your insurance and your driving privilege.

Car Thieves Get Free Pass As Washington State Patrol Tickets Annoying Drivers

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 18:33:20 -0800

Next time you’re driving and see troopers with the Washington State Patrol pulling over drivers on the side of I-5 and I-90, ask yourself: does it seem like there are more police on the road these days, issuing tickets for moving violations?

The truth is that while state revenue has been declining and budgets for police services are declining, police officers around the country find that getting in the “business” of code citations and traffic tickets is a lot easier and more revenue friendly than fighting crime. And it’s true right here in the State of Washington as troopers put a higher emphasis on what they deem “annoying” versus criminal offenses.

Don’t believe me? Fifth generation Washington native Amy Rolph, writing on Seattle’s Big Blog at seattlepi.com, had a great article over the weekend about drivers ticketed for left-lane violations. You can even watch a great video (part of the “Good to Know” series with your tax dollars at work!), courtesy of the WSP, in which Trooper J.J. Gundermann tells us that driving in the far left lane “is annoying” and as such, troopers routinely issue traffic tickets for violations of RCW 46.61.100. In the video, Trooper Gundermann acts like a teacher, explaining the law to the driver and not issuing the driver a ticket. In real life, however, troopers are not teachers and troopers rarely give warnings in lieu of tickets.

Also annoying, but completely ignored by the State Patrol (not only in the video but in real life), are car thefts. Car thefts are irritating, they cause thousands of dollars in property loss and lost wages, and car thefts are criminal acts. But a KIRO 97.3 FM investigation discovered that the Washington State Patrol, in its response to a budget cut, dismantled its car theft investigative task force and (drumroll please) reassigned more than a dozen troopers. The WSP is more interested issuing tickets to drivers who hog the left lane than in recovering your stolen car. This is the new, profit-driven priority to police work. The WSP apparently thinks that the civil offense of driving in the left lane is more of an offense against a person than stealing one's car.

A few lessons can be learned from this experience. First, car thieves will need to be more careful about driving past troopers who are looking to hand out traffic tickets like candy. Second, drivers who have their cars stolen are SOL with the WSP, which provides an incentive to car theft rings by giving thieves a free pass. While you might fall victim to a car thief, good luck trying to get the WSP to care about your stolen car. Your chances of getting a traffic ticket by the Washington State Patrol are much, much greater than getting the WSP to care about helping you get back your stolen car. Third, the roads have not become more dangerous and the risks to public safety are not any higher (and in fact are probably lower) than five years ago. The real threat to your wallet’s safety. Know that the WSP, in an unhindered, unfettered, and unabashed fashion, wholly supports your getting a ticket, your paying money to the state, and your paying higher insurance rates. Don’t let it happen. If you are the unlucky recipient of a traffic ticket, whether it be in Olympia or Everett, Seattle or Tacoma, make sure you know your rights when the police hand you a ticket and demand your cash.

April Flowers, More Speeding Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:05:34 -0800

As temperatures rise in April and May and cities across the State of Washington—especially in western Washington—see more sunny days, drivers will also see more police cars, filled with police officers bent on enforcing the traffic laws and writing people speeding tickets. It’s common to see more police on city streets, bridges, and freeways this time of year. Reasons include federal and state grants that give overtime to the police for issuing traffic citations; better weather (who wants to pull people over and stand outside in the wind and rain?); people driving faster in nicer weather (people often tend to slow down during inclement weather), and local and state governments’ desire to bring in revenue. But what does this mean to the ordinary driver? Below are some common occurrences around this time of year and how to think about or deel with some of these issues.

School zone speeding tickets. Citations for these offenses have been increasing because of the use of traffic cameras, but nicer weather also means that police will be outside of schools waiting to pull over drivers. There is good and bad news here. The good news is that in the State of Washington, traffic camera tickets do not get placed on a driver’s record and do not affect a driver’s insurance; however, this is only true for school zone tickets where evidence of speed is gathered by use of an automated camera. The bad news it that for a school zone ticket issued by a police officer, it’s a serious moving violation that can go on a driver’s record for three years if the driver just pays the ticket. While a driver has a “mitigation” option on most tickets—which ordinarily is a bad option on to begin with on officer-issued citations because it’s really akin to paying the ticket as far as one’s driving record and insurance is concerned—it’s not even an option for school zone tickets (but drivers do not know this when pulled over because all infraction tickets include the mitigation option). The reason mitigation is not available is that the Legislature does not allow judges to lower fines for school zone tickets. Lower fines do not mean that the ticket stays off a driver’s record; nevertheless, judges can’t even lower a school zone fine if they wanted to. Judges can dismiss a ticket with a good defense, and get rid of the fine that way, but drivers need to be smart enough to choose the contested hearing option and it is recommended that drivers seek legal counsel for non-camera offenses.

Tickets issued to intermediate driver license holders. Permit holders and drivers age 16 and 17 are known as intermediate drivers. Penalties for violating traffic laws are more stringent for these drivers and police are always on the lookout for young drivers. Longer days (which make all drivers more visible) with more police on the road mean that young drivers have to be especially careful.

Emphasis patrols. Ever see a string of police officers pulling people over in downtown Seattle or on I-5 near Everett? Welcome to the emphasis patrol. Sometimes the police are enforcing seat belt laws, sometimes speed laws, sometimes something else. Know that at this time of year, the police are taking extra time to issue traffic tickets.

With these tips in mind, I hope this post helps you avoid a ticket. If you are unfortunate and get a traffic ticket from a police officer, feel free to give my office a call.

Drivers on 520 Risk More Speeding Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 18:00:23 -0800

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!

Tips For Avoiding Traffic Tickets During The Thanksgiving Weekend

Jon Zimmerman — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:09:42 -0800

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.

How To Avoid School Zone Speeding Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 14:14:57 -0800

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.

Washington State Patrol Emphasizes HOV Traffic Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 11:37:56 -0800

Traffic tickets for driving in the high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane are very common on Highway 520 and interstates such as I-90, I-405, and I-5 in the State of Washington, where the Washington State Patrol is out in force looking to pull people over and cite them with HOV infractions. In fact, this type of offense has become so popular with the police and the public that Seattle Times staff reporter Christina Clarridge recently wrote a story about “Mad Dog,” the license plate and nickname of an alleged persistent HOV offender, HOV tickets, and how the public works with Washington State government and law enforcement to make sure more HOV tickets are issued.

Although the State Patrol, through its spokesman, apparently doesn’t put a high priority on HOV offenders (translation: the State Patrol doesn’t want to admit that they put a high priority on HOV tickets), the State of Washington contributes significant resources to HOV lanes, keeping track of alleged violators, and making sure tickets are issued, especially in King County. In case you were wondering, this is where your highway tax dollars go.

HOV-lane tickets are a bit unusual in that the State of Washington encourages the public to call a phone number, 877-764-HERO—also known as the HERO hotline—in order to report the license plates of alleged HOV-lane offenders. The phone number has been in existence since 1984 and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) accepts reports of alleged HOV violators, runs license plates of reported violator vehicles, and then mails brochures and letters to the owners of the vehicles (which may or may not be the drivers). WSDOT also reports license plates to the Washington State Patrol so that the police can be on the lookout for frequently reported vehicles.

Although the police can cite any driver they observe unlawfully in an HOV lane, calls to the HERO line do not result in the issuance of a citation. On the first complaint, WSDOT sends a brochure, followed by a letter after the second complaint. On the third complaint, the Washington State Patrol sends a letter. The article states that

Typically the police cite drivers under RCW 46.61.165, the HOV lane statute, when the police view an individual driving as a single occupant in a restricted, HOV lane with diamond markings, but also when there are two occupants in a lane restricted to three occupants.

In fact, I get a lot of phone calls about HOV tickets. Most of the time drivers ask me if tickets for driving in the HOV are moving violations. Indeed, in Washington, HOV infractions are moving offenses that affect a person’s insurance and driving privilege, just like a speeding ticket or failure to yield violation.

If you have received an HOV ticket and want to fight it, contact me by e-mail or by phone.

How Seattle And Other Cities Live Off Speeding Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:39:01 -0800

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.

Why You Should Fight Your Traffic Ticket And How An Attorney Can Save You Time And Money

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 20:27:50 -0800

Here you are in your vehicle, driving along, and you see blue and red lights flashing behind you. A police officer is practically on your bumper. You pull over and an officer asks you for your license, registration, and insurance. The police officer takes your information, leaves to go to his or her patrol car or motorcycle, and a few minutes later the officer has returned with a ticket. You drive away, irritated and not knowing what to do.

A few of the frequent questions I get asked are:

1. Should I fight my speeding or other type of traffic ticket?

2. Why should I hire an experienced attorney to help me fight my traffic ticket?

3. My traffic ticket that I got in Everett or Seattle or Tacoma is *only* for $124, why should I pay a lawyer more than the face value of the ticket?

These are great questions. Maybe you are reading this blog and you just got a traffic ticket, or you are wondering how to fight your ticket. Or perhaps you are coming to this blog because you understand some of the costs involved beyond what you see on a speeding ticket or other type of moving violation.

WHY YOU NEED TO FIGHT

Moving violations affect auto and life insurance premiums as well as your driving record. For some people it even affects employment. It's important to differentiate between a moving violation and a nonmoving violation. The general difference is that moving violations usually affect your driving record and what you pay for insurance and nonmoving violations usually do not. There are some unusual exceptions, but this is a basic, general difference in most but not all cases. Want to keep your insurance from going through the roof? Want to keep your driving record clean so you don't get suspended or revoked? These are reasons why you need to fight your traffic ticket. Paying or mitigating a moving violation means you are saying "please raise my insurance rates, please put this violation on my record." Informed and smart drivers understand that they want to keep their driving records clean and drivers want to keep insurance rates low.

WHY YOU SHOULD HIRE AN ATTORNEY EXPERIENCED IN DEFENDING PEOPLE WHO GET TRAFFIC TICKETS

In my practice I have fought thousands of tickets for people in most of the State of Washington's 39 counties. I see people in court all the time trying to defend themselves. In fact, some people tell me "I'm going to defend myself on this ticket, the cop was absolutely wrong, and when I tell the judge what happened, the judge will believe me." I also hear others say "the judge just sided with the officer and didn't listen to anything I had to say." The truth is that most people in court on a traffic ticket have rarely been to court. They have no idea what to say. They are nervous. They often convict themselves by saying something that never or rarely works. And I see people who represent themselves lose, time and again. But these drivers aren't just losing $124. They are losing jobs. Drivers are losing more money to insurance companies (often thousands of dollars) and drivers then have tarnished driving records, making it financially more difficult to pay other expenses.

It pains me to see drivers who represent themselves lose, especially when these drivers could often win if they had just said the right thing. An attorney experienced in fighting traffic tickets and in defending people accused of traffic violations understands the law, an attorney is familiar with the rules the police must follow and what happens when these rules aren't followed, and an attorney understands court procedures. In my experience, judges often treat people with attorneys better than those who fight traffic tickets without an attorney. This isn't necessarily fair, but it's a reality I often see. One reason is that sometimes judges feel that a person who has hired an attorney cares more about the person's driving record. Another reason is that judges know that an experienced attorney understands where to start and often has some familiarity with the court's policies and sometimes with the prosecutor. This usually helps the court calendars run more quickly and smoothly.

Finally, people visit a doctor for medical problems, a plumber for plumbing issues, and a mechanic for car issues. People do this because these providers can help in very specific areas. The legal world is complicated. Missteps are expensive. They cost people money and create numerous other headaches. Don't let a traffic ticket cause you a lot of stress. Contact an attorney who focuses on representing people with traffic tickets and put your best foot forward (not just on the gas!). An attorney can usually go to court without you having to appear, meaning you can stay at work and let your lawyer deal with your case in court.

HOW A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS TO AN ATTORNEY CAN SAVE YOU THOUSANDS OF BUCKS

Except in exceptional and unusual cases, I always charge a flat fee to fight traffic tickets. This creates certainty in the fee and lowers stress.

Let's work with the example in the third question above. A driver receives a $124 speeding ticket. This is a moving violation that, if you lose the violation, pay, or mitigate the ticket, stays on the insurance record for three years and affects your premiums. How does it add up?

Imagine that you pay the ticket and disregard everything I've said on this blog. For illustration purposes only, imagine your rates go up a modest $125 every six months for three years, just because of this one infraction, let's say a speeding ticket or unsafe lane change or stop sign infraction. Forget employment or other diving privilege issues.

Your potential cost in this example only:

$150 x 6 premium periods = $900

$124 cost of the ticket =

------------------------------------------------

$1,024 = Cost to driver of paying the ticket and not hiring an attorney to fight the ticket (for illustration purposes only, as every driver will have different factors that affect insurance premiums and overall costs).

An attorney's fee for dealing with a speeding ticket and trying to get a traffic ticket dismissed or down to something that won't affect a person's insurance and driving record is often LESS than what you will pay in extra costs over time.

To recap: Fight your ticket, hire an experienced attorney who understands procedural (technical) and substantive issues, and do not get fooled into thinking that the amount on the ticket is the bottom line. Know that you can fight your ticket and that you can hire an experienced attorney who will try to save you time and money.

Reexamining Seattle Prehearing Conferences For Traffic Tickets: Waste of Time Or A Welcome Party?

Jon Zimmerman — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:50:16 -0800

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.

Contesting, Mitigating, and Appealing Traffic Infractions From the Seattle Speeding Ticket to the Sunnyside Improper Lane Change Ticket

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:14:16 -0800

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.

Immigrants and Traffic Tickets: Licensed or Not, Drivers Face Great Risk

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 11:29:10 -0800

Correspondents Julia Preston and Robert Gebeloff recently published an article in The New York Times on illegal immigrant drivers in which these journalists wrote about how Some Unlicensed Drivers Who Risk More Than a Fine can face deportation in traffic cases.

What many people don't understand, however, is that even licensed drivers who are immigrants can face the risk of deportation and other immigration consequences that can have a serious impact on their livelihood and the lives of their families. How can this happen?

What used to be seen as a simple traffic ticket may not always be so, especially for the immigrant driver. For example, in many municipalities, prosecutors might choose to refile--even when they should not--civil infractions as criminal offenses. These criminal offenses, if they turn into convictions, can lead to immigration violations if the offenses are crimes of moral turpitude, crimes that carry serious public safety risks, or both. Even with civil infractions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) routinely contact courts to obtain case docketing information on case records, even on traffic infractions. The federal government is looking at state court records of immigrants, and immigrants should be concerned.

Unfortunately, the risk of examination, and thus an immigration hold, is becoming more frequent for drivers in many states, including Washington. Certain drivers are at greater risk than others. For example, in the State of Washington, Hispanic drivers are at great risk of getting pulled over for a driving offense and having an immigration problem because in addition to a large Hispanic population in the state, Hispanic drivers are disproportionately unlicensed. Washington, New Mexico, and Utah currently allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver licenses; yet in Washington, 38% of Hispanic drivers killed in crashes between 2000-2009 were unlicensed (contrast this with 19% in New Mexico and 43% in Utah), according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nationally, the number stood at 35% for the same time period.

In addition, in the State of Washington, Hispanic drivers are increasingly targeted by the Washington State Patrol. As of the end of 2010, even though the Hispanic population of the state accounts for just over 10% of the state's overall population, to date 80% of the WSP's Most Wanted fugitives are Hispanic. 80% of illegal immigrants nationally are also Hispanic.

What will also have an effect on immigrant drivers is the federal government's emphasis on empowering state law enforcement to question, arrest, and detain illegal immigrants after routine traffic stops. Perhaps most controversial is ICE's 287(g) program, which local police agencies can join. Under the program, the federal government trains local police officers to question and detain--by placing immigration holds (detainers) on suspected illegal immigrants so that when a release from a local jail would normally occur, the inmate is not really released but transferred to federal custody. As the New York Times observes, the program is designed to hone in on "criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety or a danger to the community." Vanessa Kosky, a defense attorney in Georgia, believes that most illegal immigrants caught up in the 287(g) program are not terrible drivers. She states: "These are not D.U.I.'s. These are not people who are putting people in danger."

Whatever the case may be, this phenomenon doesn't just affect Hispanic immigrants from Mexico and unlicensed drivers. In my own practice, I have also seen licensed immigrant drivers in Washington from Canada, Asia, and Europe who can have many problems with courts and immigration.

Although all drivers should contact an attorney who understands traffic offenses when these drivers receive a notice of a traffic violation, what is clear is that immigrant drivers face a special, heightened risk of other problems such as detention and deportation. Immigrant drivers should not try to deal with these offenses and the American legal system by themselves. Contacting an attorney can often help protect one's rights.

I Got a Traffic Ticket in Washington State: What Box Do I Check?

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:56:31 -0800

A frequent question drivers have for me when they receive a speeding ticket or other type of traffic ticket is which box they should check before they return the ticket. A few years ago I wrote a little bit about what to do when you get a traffic ticket and the same really holds true: read the ticket, and then figure out which box to check. What box should I check when I get a ticket for negligent driving in the second degree, speeding, or failing to signal?

The first two boxes are really no choices at all if you wish to challenge your ticket, whether it's a speeding infraction, failure to yield infraction, or a ticket for multiple infractions. This is true whether you get the speeding ticket in Snohomish or Seattle, Clyde Hill or Kirkland, Bellevue or Bellingham. The reason is that with the first box, you're just paying the ticket. With the second box, you are asking for a reduction in the fine. What's wrong with that you ask? Nothing if you like paying higher insurance premiums for moving violations and having a mark against your driver's license that can affect your driving privilege and even your job. In fact, with the second box, some infractions (like speeding in a school zone or speeding in a construction zone) cannot have their fines reduced (but you're not told that when you get the ticket).

The choice for fighting your Seattle speeding ticket or your Pierce County failure to yield to an emergency vehicle citation, to give a couple examples, is to contest the ticket. You do that by checking the last choice. It's true - the agency tasked with designing these infractions saved the best choice for last. If you want a chance at keeping the ticket from affecting your insurance, your job, and even your driving privilege, the contested hearing box is the one you want.

Now it's true that not every type of ticket affects insurance, your job, and your driving privilege, but if you're not sure, it's always a good idea to check the contested hearing box and find out from an experienced Seattle traffic attorney what the consequences are for a particular infraction. If you decide not to fight the ticket, you can always pay the amount on the ticket prior to the hearing. But it's often very difficult--if not impossible--to get a hearing after you've missed the deadline (15 days to request a hearing from the date you are issued the infraction, slightly longer if the ticket is mailed to you). You have nothing to lose by preserving your right to a contested hearing.

Practice Tip: When you check the contested hearing box for your traffic ticket, make sure you do two more things: make a copy of the ticket for your attorney and/or your records, and mail the original ticket to the court certified and return receipt requested. Why do you want to mail it this way? Because courts lose paperwork. With thousands of tickets each day and millions each year just in the State of Washington, courts are going to lose stuff. They are going to misplace paperwork. Why have that happen to your case? A certified mail slip helps show a court that you mailed something, and a return receipt shows that someone signed for what you mailed. Having both a certified mail slip and a return receipt is a good idea in the event the court or the post office loses your paperwork. Your local U.S. Post Office will help you with the proper forms so that you can mail your ticket back to the court, whether you got the ticket in Spokane, Cle Elum, Tacoma, or Everett.

Requesting a contested hearing is the only choice that allows you, when you respond to a traffic ticket in Washington State, to challenge the citation(s) and attempt to get your ticket dismissed; to not pay a monetary penalty (bail amount); and to keep your driving record clear of citations for insurance purposes. In my practice, I strongly support #3. People do not come to me for #1 or #2, and they shouldn't. Checking the third box on the back of the ticket is the only way to have the opportunity to avoid a monetary cost to the State AND to keep your insurance rates reasonable. Often, the cost of hiring me to represent you is much smaller than the potential increase in insurance costs that a driver could face if he or she is found to have committed the infraction. And sometimes, if you choose to have me represent you, you might not even have to come to court, which can save you the expense of taking time off work. In my practice, I can't guarantee that I'll win every time, but I can say with confidence that I will fight hard to get you the best possible result every time, and hopefully a result that will save you money on your insurance and keep your driving privilege intact. Before you decide to pay a lot of money to the government and to your insurance company, call or e-mail me for a free evaluation of your traffic ticket in Washington State.

Give Drivers More Parking and Photo-Enforcement Tickets: Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn's War On Drivers

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:44:24 -0800

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.

Election 2010 Recap for Traffic Law Development: Members of Congress Who Speed Are In; Traffic Cameras Out in Mukilteo

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:26:17 -0800

The 2010 midterm and state elections were significant: nearly two dozen state legislatures changed control, more than 60 Repubicans were swept into the U.S. House (including at least one member-elect who has earned a lot of speeding tickets), and here in the State of Washington we had several voter initiatives at the state and local levels ranging from privitization of liquor sales, increasing the sales tax, creation of a state income tax, school levies, and--for a first in the State of Washington--a measure to make it much harder for the City of Mukilteo to install and generate income on red-light and speed enforcement traffic cameras. But before we get to Mukilteo, let's talk about South Dakota.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Leading the pack (literally!) of members-elect in the 112th Congress will be Kristi Noem, a farmer, rancher, hunting lodge owner, restaurant manager, and now South Dakota's at-large member-elect to the United States House of Representatives. Congresswoman-elect Noem defeated Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, but Noem didn't win without her driving record making national headlines. The South Dakota Democratic Party created what has to be one of the most amusing political hit websites of the 2010 cycle, chronicling Kristi Noem's driving, arrest warrant, and ticket history, along with a fantastic YouTube video in which candidate Noem states: "It's always kind of been in my nature to be in a hurry and get things done."

I can't tell which I like better: the video, the map (with audio as you scroll over it) of Noem's violations, arrest warrants, and failures to appear, or the fact that South Dakota voters really don't care whether their sole representative to the U.S. House drives a little fast.

A few observations: if you speed, South Dakota voters will probably forgive you. About 30 speeding tickets? Not a problem if you want to represent South Dakota! If you are in Congress representing South Dakota and run through a stop sign and kill a motorcyclist, however, a South Dakota jury will likely convict you of manslaughter and you will probably go to jail, as happened to Bill Janklow a few years ago.

Second, if you're Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, you get defeated repeatedly by those who speed like Janklow and Noem. Apparently speeding tickets are not disincentives for getting elected to congressional office and candidates might actually do better in their electoral pursuits to rack up a few tickets.

In the words of Congresswoman-elect Noem, "[B]e in a hurry and gets things done"!

Third, if you're a family member who lost a loved one to a member of Congress's heavy foot, and the member of Congress kills your loved one while on official business, consider suing the United States Government and not the member of Congress, who will likely be protected from monetary damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Finally, my advice for Congresswoman-elect Noem - if you get stopped for speeding after you're sworn into office, consider invoking Article I, section 6, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States:

Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all cases except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Sessions of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same...

- - -

MUKILTEO

The big news out of Mukilteo on Election Day is that Mukilteo voters are fed up with red-light cameras. In fact, voters there also don't want speed cameras. Like other jurisdictions across the United States, Mukilteo believes that traffic enforcement via camera technology is unnecessary. So voters there decided to limit fines from these cameras to $20 per infraction, while making it much more difficult to install cameras in the future (two-thirds council vote, followed by a public vote to ratify council action). There is a hope that Mukilteo's action might spur voter initiatives to end traffic "safety" cameras statewide. Stay tuned.

Driving With a Handheld Cell Phone: The New Primary Offense in the State of Washington

Jon Zimmerman — Mon, 31 May 2010 11:45:39 -0800

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.

Memorial Day Weekend In Washington: A Traffic Ticket Holiday For Law Enforcement

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:04:43 -0800

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.

Washington House Reverses Course: Legislature Makes Hand-Held Cell Phone Use While Driving and Texting Primary Offenses

Jon Zimmerman — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:39:18 -0800

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.

Washington Legislature Fails On Texting/Cell Phone Infraction Bill

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:37:13 -0800

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.