Thread: Ask an attorney
View Single Post
Old 03-02-2005, 06:54 AM   #93 (permalink)
Master_Shake
Addict
 
Master_Shake's Avatar
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
May I assume that this is for a violation of:

RCW 46.61.445
Due care required.
Compliance with speed requirements of this chapter under the circumstances hereinabove set forth shall not relieve the operator of any vehicle from the further exercise of due care and caution as further circumstances shall require.

1. Having bald tires is not an effective defense. If you proved you had bald tires, it would only establish that you were still going too fast for conditions (one of those conditions being driving a vehicle with bald tires). You also don't have to be speeding to be driving "too fast for conditions."

An effective defense might be that the State cannot prove how fast you were going at all. Unless the guy was there with a radar detector, or you admitted how fast you were going (never confess!) they may be unable to establish that you were travelling too fast. The Magistrate may or may not buy this argument, but it's probably the best available if you choose to fight it.

Remember you have to prove that you exercised due care. If you get to argue, your argument should focus on how unreasonable someone else was driving, and that you were doing the most reasonable thing under the circumstances. If the guy ahead of you stopped short for no apparent reason, that might work.

2. It would absolutely not be better to mail your defense in. If you are going to fight this, you should appear. This will give you a chance to speak with the officer, maybe get him to lower the offense, maybe to one with a lower fine. Disobedience to a traffic control device is a favourite of mine.

If the cop won't budge or you have to fight the case, you'll need to be there to cross-examine the cop's story and point out his inconsistencies or other problems with his story.

Mailing in a defense is almost a guaranteed way of letting the magistrate accept the cop's word and issue the ticket.


As an interesting afterthought, look what else I found on the books in Washington:

RCW 46.61.665
Embracing another while driving.
It shall be unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state when such person has in his or her embrace another person which prevents the free and unhampered operation of such vehicle. Operation of a motor vehicle in violation of this section is prima facie evidence of reckless driving.
__________________
-------------
You know something, I don't think the sun even... exists... in this place. 'Cause I've been up for hours, and hours, and hours, and the night never ends here.
Master_Shake is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360