Posted: 3/11/2011 9:21:02 AM EDT
|
Anyone have ideas of what it takes to win?
The first pic is clearly after I stopped. Its in Bremerton if that matters. Both pics show 15.0 mph, no brake lights, and in the 1st pic Im less than 1 foot from the crosswalk. I KNOW, Im going to get a shit pot of replys saying "You did it" and pay it, but I didnt, and I WONT I was 2 blocks from where I was going, and 40 minutes early, I was in no hurry. Ideas? |
|
Quoted:
Anyone have ideas of what it takes to win? The first pic is clearly after I stopped. Its in Bremerton if that matters. Both pics show 15.0 mph, no brake lights, and in the 1st pic Im less than 1 foot from the crosswalk. I KNOW, Im going to get a shit pot of replys saying "You did it" and pay it, but I didnt, and I WONT I was 2 blocks from where I was going, and 40 minutes early, I was in no hurry. Ideas? Say you're not the driver, invoke 5th when they demand you tell them to identify the driver. They have to dismiss per state law. |
|
RCW 46.63.075
(1) In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of a photo enforcement system under RCW 46.63.160, or detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was in violation of any such provision of RCW 46.63.160 or 46.63.170, together with proof that the person named in the notice of traffic infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred. (2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner. /the law requires only testifying you weren't the driver, some areas 'require' you inform them who was driving, which is against state law, and of course, can be avoided by pleading the fifth. they cant prove you were drivingm as the cameras, by law, cannot capture a face. |
|
Quoted:
RCW 46.63.075 (1) In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of a photo enforcement system under RCW 46.63.160, or detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was in violation of any such provision of RCW 46.63.160 or 46.63.170, together with proof that the person named in the notice of traffic infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred. (2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner. /the law requires only testifying you weren't the driver, some areas 'require' you inform them who was driving, which is against state law, and of course, can be avoided by pleading the fifth. they cant prove you were drivingm as the cameras, by law, cannot capture a face. The OP stated in his post he was the driver. So, you're telling hime to lie under oath? |
|
Quoted: /the law requires only testifying you weren't the driver, some areas 'require' you inform them who was driving, which is against state law, and of course, can be avoided by pleading the fifth. they cant prove you were drivingm as the cameras, by law, cannot capture a face. Back when I did it, the first thing I did was pull the Seattle (SMC i think?) and compare it to the RCW. OP needs to see the local ord chapter & verse. There is a hella difference here- the RCW says you only have to provide a statement under oath that it wasnt you. The Seattle ticket says, "Fill out all lines on our form and we will let you go"- one line being, "If it wasnt you tell us who it was". I sent them a note saying, "In accordance with RCW 46.63.075 I CavVet, registered owner do state under oath in this written statement to the court that the above noted vehicle was in the care and custody of some person other than me." AND NOTHING ELSE! I got this back....  |