Washington Traffic Law Blog

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.

Thanksgiving To Bring Increase In Police Patrols And Speeding Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:15:22 -0800

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

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

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

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

Happy Thanksgiving and safe driving this holiday weekend.

Prosecutors Decline to Charge Alexandra Kerry With DUI After Traffic Infraction

Jon Zimmerman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:50:26 -0800

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

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

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

More Red Light Cameras (or How Elected Officials Piss Off Constituents) in Issaquah, Seattle, and Fife, Among Other Cities

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:23:23 -0800

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

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

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

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

Among them:

“[L]ast week came the latest in a series of studies showing red-light cameras may be having perverse effects on drivers. They do nothing to reduce accidents and may even cause them. . . . The cameras raise money, not public safety.

Thank you, Mr. Westneat, for calling it like it is. But Westneat has to compete with his elected officials, chief among them Seattle City Councilmember Nick Licata, who hates cars let alone the people who drive them. Licata thinks red light cameras are wonderful.

Opines Licata:

“Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata, a fan of the red-light program, says [Westneat is] nuts. The problem, if there is one, is there aren't enough red-light cameras to get everyone to slow down and drive less aggressively.

"It's a major undertaking to change our driving culture," Licata said.

Licata gets it wrong. We don’t need to change the driving culture, we need to change ourselves for having allowed people like Licata to advocate and expend taxpayer resources on these egregious devices. Want to blame Licata? Understandable. But Licata is a small part of the problem. The problem is that no one has stepped forward to stop the Nick Licatas of the world—and there are many on city councils across Washington State—from putting red-light cameras everywhere. Licata would put red-light cameras outside at the foot of your driveway or garage if he could.

Don’t like it? Probably the best way to solve this issue is through a voter initiative that would change state law by prohibiting municipalities from using red-light cameras or prohibit municipalities from keeping any of the funds collected from the use of red-light cameras. We had a failed statewide voter initiative that linked the latter idea to other transportation issues, but perhaps it's time to unlink this issue and put it before the voters once and for all. This would be Nick Licata's worst nightmare.

Eldest Daughter of Senator John Kerry Stopped for Traffic Violation, Arrested on Suspicion of DUI

Jon Zimmerman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:35:22 -0800

Alexandra Kerry was the subject of a traffic stop in Hollywood today. A police officer stopped a vehicle driven by Kerry, 36, because of expired vehicle registration tabs.

Unfortunately, a simple traffic infraction turned into a full-blown DUI stop, with a custodial arrest. Kerry declined to take a portable breath test, instead opting to take a breath test at the station. In California, like in the State of Washington, a person can still be charged with a DUI if their breath test is below the legal limit because the State can still convict a person of DUI without a breath test if the person is appreciably impaired.

I hope prosecutors in California decline to move forward with criminal charges. Ms. Kerry was pulled over for a nonmoving violation, she appeared cooperative, and her breath test was below the per se limit. Clearly her case generates a lot of press and has cost her thousands of dollars in bail money, which, although she is a person of more than modest means, is still somewhat punitive.

But what lesson should be learned from Ms. Kerry's experience in the traffic stop context? It's quite simple: check your license tabs. Don't drive without valid tabs. Driving with expired tabs is like driving with your gas cover open--both are visible distractions to police officers and likely to get you pulled over.

Since Ms. Kerry was not pulled over for a moving violation, it appears as though she would not have had a problem with the police but for her expired tabs.

To avoid a traffic stop and traffic ticket for an infraction of expired tabs in the State of Washington, remember to renew your tabs and post the new license tab each of your vehicles prior to tab expiration.

And good luck Ms. Kerry, I am cheering for you.

Washington State Senator Looks To Treat Marijuana Possession Like A Traffic Ticket

Jon Zimmerman — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:35:24 -0800

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bellevue to Issue Tickets Via Speed Cameras

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 20:31:40 -0800

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

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

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

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

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

From Speeding Tickets to Mr. Tickles: Why Seattle Municipal Court Should Be Televised

Jon Zimmerman — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:13:45 -0800

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: 6/25/09 - SEATTLE

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

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

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

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

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

Morton Police Officers Waste Taxpayer Resources on Traffic Court

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:22:30 -0800

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

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

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

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

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

Do Seattle Police Officers Receive Special Treatment After They Get Cited For DUI?

Jon Zimmerman — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:10:09 -0800

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

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

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

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

Washington State Patrol to Issue More Construction Zone Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:25:37 -0800

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

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

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

Seattle To Curb Free Parking In Fremont - More Tickets to Issue

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:08:28 -0800

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

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

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

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

Extra Law Enforcement To Provide Seat-Belt Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:34:50 -0800

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

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

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

Speed Van Deployed In Seattle, Will Create More Traffic Tickets

Jon Zimmerman — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:06:20 -0800

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

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

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

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

Cell Phone Ban to Result in Traffic Tickets Starting July 1, 2008

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:48:07 -0800

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

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

What Speed Constitutes Reckless Driving in Washington?

Jon Zimmerman — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:26:06 -0800

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

UPDATE (NOVEMBER 9, 2008):

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

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

The Court stated:

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

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

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

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

Seattle To Increase Red Light Cameras; Puyallup to Begin Camera Enforcement in February

Jon Zimmerman — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:44:54 -0800

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

Washington State Patrol (WSP) Issues More Speeding Tickets and Gets Award

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:30:15 -0800

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

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

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

Speeding Ticket for Sledding Too Fast?

Jon Zimmerman — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:40:13 -0800

An article recently appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about police in Waukesha, Wisconsin using RADAR to clock sledders and snowboarders. It appears as though the police in America's Dairyland were not out to issue citations, but rather officers were around to tell people that they might have been traveling a whopping 19 MPH. It is worth clicking on the link just to observe one of the Waukesha officers with his RADAR gun pointed at sledders in Lowell Park. Here in Washington, the police seem much more interested in citing motorists than they do educating sledders. Whether you get a ticket for sledding too fast or speeding in a motor vehicle, drop me a note or give me a call.

New Text-Messaging While Driving Ban to Start on January 1, 2008

Jon Zimmerman — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:54:23 -0800

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