Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/13/2005 4:43:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 4:43:47 PM EDT by SKSGuy]
What is the term the lower courts use now? (the courts of limited jurisdiction)

Charging document?


Few legal questions pending response.

Thanks
-Rob
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:57:48 PM EDT
There is no constitutional common law in existance in this current injustice system, however they still use the language on occasion or invoke as a way to keep revolution from happening to soon.


"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:23:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:03:07 AM EDT by SKSGuy]
Besides it being the 5th Amendment in the United States Constitution.

Is there a state court rule I'm overlooking that reiterates due process?

A citation filed with the clerk of the court must also include an affidavit of probable cause (sometimes referred to as the charging document) at the same time (or within) 48hrs of the issuance of the citation (barring holidays and weekends). If the affidavit isn't accompanied with the charging document it falls within something known as Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

What my question is, is there a state court rule presumably an ARLJ that says "charging documents as well as affidavits MUST be filed with the clerk of the court within 48hrs of the issuance of the citation otherwise said citation shall be dismissed with prejudice" ?

I'm almost sure it's there I just can't find the damn thing.

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:45:07 PM EDT
Are you talking about a traffic citation?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:30:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
There is no constitutional common law in existance in this current injustice system, however they still use the language on occasion or invoke as a way to keep revolution from happening to soon.


"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams



He might be asking an honest question about what is in RCW or WAC....
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:31:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 6:39:45 PM EDT by SKSGuy]

Originally Posted By Stickman:
Are you talking about a traffic citation?



In this paticular instance it is a traffic citation, correct.


It is not a criminal traffic related citation either, rather a Civil Infraction.


-Rob
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:54:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
It is not a criminal traffic related citation either, rather a Civil Infraction.


-Rob




keep trying!!!

maybe next time........
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:01:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 8:01:40 PM EDT by SKSGuy]

Originally Posted By CarbineMonoxide:
keep trying!!!

maybe next time........



Will do
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:42:25 PM EDT
Rules for courts of limited jurisdiction for infractions can be found at:


http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.list&group=clj&set=IRLJ
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:48:13 PM EDT
Generally the citation that the officer issues will contain a statement that they have reason to believe the violation took place. They may also make such a statement at the time of filing of the charging document, or citation.

In some jurisdictions the officers will write on the back of the citation the basis for the charge, a brief statement of the facts. This provides enough for the courts to find both the probable cause and to determine proper jurisdiction. Some will even allow the case to be heard on the basis of the officers statement on the back of the citation without the officer being required to be present, at least they did at one time.

As for not making a timely filing with the court, it calls for the dismissal of the citation without prejudice.

Of course, this seldom comes up in my practice, as I don't often have people wanting to hire me for simple traffic infractions. So, information may be out of date, or even wrong. It is worth exactly what you've paid for it.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:48:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 9:49:52 PM EDT by SKSGuy]
not really helping me there LawTalkingGuy. I've looked but I must be blind because I can't find it.

Thats why I'm asking here...I'm hoping someone DOES know off the top of their head.

Ignore that...I didn't see your second post when I was posting this reponse
-Rob
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:52:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 9:58:30 PM EDT by SKSGuy]

Originally Posted By LawTalkingGuy:
Generally the citation that the officer issues will contain a statement that they have reason to believe the violation took place. They may also make such a statement at the time of filing of the charging document, or citation.

In some jurisdictions the officers will write on the back of the citation the basis for the charge, a brief statement of the facts. This provides enough for the courts to find both the probable cause and to determine proper jurisdiction. Some will even allow the case to be heard on the basis of the officers statement on the back of the citation without the officer being required to be present, at least they did at one time.

As for not making a timely filing with the court, it calls for the dismissal of the citation without prejudice.

Of course, this seldom comes up in my practice, as I don't often have people wanting to hire me for simple traffic infractions. So, information may be out of date, or even wrong. It is worth exactly what you've paid for it.



The officer never filed an affidavit of probable cause (no charging document). And in my case the young officer made multiple errors both in the citation and in the filing.... but the most glaring is this lack of a charging document
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 9:59:41 PM EDT
RULE 2.2
INITIATION OF INFRACTION CASES

(a) Generally. An infraction case is initiated by the issuance,
service, and filing of a notice of infraction in accordance with
this rule.
(b) Who May Issue. A notice of infraction may be issued, upon
certification that the issuer has probable cause to believe, and
does believe, that a person has committed an infraction contrary to
law:
(1) By a citing officer. The infraction need not have been
committed in the officers presence, except as provided by statute;
(2) By the prosecuting authority.
(c) Service of Notice. A notice of infraction may be served
either by:
(1) The citing officer serving the notice of infraction on the
person named in the notice of infraction at the time of issuance;
(2) The citing officer affixing to a vehicle in a conspicuous
place the notice of a traffic infraction if it alleges the violation
of a parking, standing, or stopping statute; or
(3) The citing officer or the prosecuting authority filing the
notice of infraction with the court, in which case the court shall
have the notice served either personally or by mail, postage
prepaid, on the person named in the notice of infraction at his or
her address. If a notice of infraction served by mail is returned to
the court as undeliverable, the court shall issue a summons.
(d) Filing of Notice. When a notice of infraction has been
issued, the notice shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction
over the infraction or with a violations bureau subject to such
courts supervision. The notice must be filed within two days of
issuance of the notice, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
A notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this
section may be dismissed without prejudice.


The "Charging Document" is the citation itself, which is personally served upon the defendant at the time the citation is issued. In other words, when he hands you the ticket, it's been served. He then has two days to file it with the court, with certification that at the time of issuance he had reason to believe and does believe that a violation has occurred.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:20:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 11:25:53 PM EDT by SKSGuy]
Oops! my mistake. I meant...isn't the charging document supposed to be accompanied by the Affidavit of probable cause? mind you the signature on the charging document the officer sigs reads "I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of washington that I have issued this on the date and at the location above, that I have probable cause to believe the above named person committed the above offense(s), and my report written on the back of this document OR attached to this infraction is true and correct"

Thoughts?

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:37:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:54:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 11:56:28 PM EDT by SKSGuy]

Originally Posted By Tweak:


SKSGuy

Traffic citation

Who'dathunkit?




Don't be a jealous whore. I'll beat da rap.

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 12:10:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 1:43:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SKSGuy:
.isn't the charging document supposed to be accompanied by the Affidavit of probable cause? mind you the signature on the charging document the officer sigs reads "I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of washington that I have issued this on the date and at the location above, that I have probable cause to believe the above named person committed the above offense(s), and my report written on the back of this document OR attached to this infraction is true and correct"

Thoughts?

-Rob



It is very dangerous to the officer's career to be filing/recording sworn affidavit's, while there is a great deal of force in a sworn affidavit there is also liability and the court can not see a living soul, you are indeed mixing forms of law, the court you are in is a legal fiction, it can only see other legal fictions, not real living souls, yes the court/judge has the ability to come out from behind the vail but they lose it's protection as well.

Why does anyone look for fairness and justice in the devils court ?
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 4:41:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 5:04:44 AM EDT by SKSGuy]
I'm not looking for fairness from the court system. They've already violated multiple laws and regulations and proven to me that they need a good eye-opening experience from yours truly. I WILL win my case. That's not the issue. While it's true I seek out one morsel of information I find myself kind of wasting time here. Not that you don't have generous amounts of information to offer me, it is just not what I'm looking for exactly. I came seeking really one thing but either I'm not explaining myself well, it doesn't exist, or you don't know. Whatever the case is I appreciate and respect the people behind the responses but I think I'll move on and see what I can find elsewhere.

Strat...you da man

If you ever make a bumpersticker...you give me a ring

-Rob
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:32:20 AM EDT
Simple answer: No.

Longer answer: The affidavit of probable cause is not required, as the rule included above states:

"A notice of infraction may be issued, upon certification that the issuer has probable cause to believe, and does believe, that a person has committed an infraction contrary to law"

The statement on the citation that you quoted:

"I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of washington that I have issued this on the date and at the location above, that I have probable cause to believe the above named person committed the above offense(s), and my report written on the back of this document OR attached to this infraction is true and correct"

is the requred "certification". Certifications are under penalty of perjury and have replaced "affidavits" in many instances. Both are sworn statements and both are subject to sanctions for perjury if untrue. The certification includes by reference any report attached or written on the back, which therefore are also subject to perjury penalties. They are the functional equivalent of the Affidavit of Probable Cause.
Top Top