Seattle Traffic Lawyer | IRLJ 6.6 Uncovered

Before I was a full fledged Seattle traffic lawyer and wanting to learn about the business, I would often go down to traffic court and just watch for an hour or so. This was before I had any idea of the traffic rules and regulations, the procedural rules, or any of the other things you really need to know to be a good Seattle traffic lawyer. And I was always mesmerized by one exchange I heard over and over again but never really quite understood. It went something like this:

(Court calls the case)

Traffic Attorney: "Good morning your honor. Before we begin I have a preliminary motion to dismiss pursuant to IRLJ 6.6. The SMD certification is noncompliant."

Judge:(shuffles through a book) "Are you attesting to have done a thorough search of the records as an officer of the court?"

Traffic Attorney: "Yes, your honor."

Judge: "Very well. Case dismissed."

After hearing this several times I was intrigued by what the IRLJ was, what 6.6 was, and how this simple saying could result in so many dismissals. So I checked it out. And what I found was what you might expect, the procedural rules for traffic court.
Let the Seattle Traffic Lawyer Blog explain a little.

It turns out IRLJ stands for Infraction Rules of Limited Jurisdiction, which, translated, means the traffic court procedural rules. These are the rules the court must follow when conducting a contested hearing, the rules the attorneys must follow when entering their appearance, asking for discovery, and other procedural things, and the rules required for filing tickets. Included in these rules are numerous ways to get your Seattle speeding ticket dismissed, one of which is IRLJ 6.6.

IRLJ 6.6 is entitled, "Speed Measuring Device: Design and Construction Certification." What it does is allow speeding tickets in Seattle and throughout the State of Washington that were issued using radar technology to be handled in an efficient and timely manner. See, thing is, when a radar gun is used to bust you for speeding, before that information can be admitted into evidence in court, the officer or the prosecutor have to prove to the court that the evidence is reliable. This means they have to show that the radar unit was properly calibrated on that day, the it was used properly, and that it was maintained in a manner that makes its reading on the day you got busted reliable.

The first two things the cop can do, but the third one must be done by the person that maintains and tests the guns as required by the maintenance schedule. In the past this had to be done by having the technician come in and testify about the maintenance upkeep. But IRLJ 6.6 allows for the technician to file a sworn affidavit about the maintenance requirements and the last time maintenance was performed on the specific radar gun. Because of this, however, IRLJ 6.6 has some fairly strict rules regarding filing with the court and accessibility that, if not kept up, result in the dismissal of your Seattle speeding ticket.

Here is the text of the rule, with the actual certification language held out (if you want to see it, you can go here to check it out):

(a) In General. This rule applies only to contested hearings in traffic infraction cases.

(b) Speed Measuring Device Certificate; Form. In the absence of proof of a request on a separate pleading to produce an electronic or laser speed measuring device (SMD) expert served on the prosecuting authority and filed with the clerk of the court at least 30 days prior to trial or such lesser time as the court deems proper, a certificate in substantially the following form is admissible in lieu of an expert witness in any court proceeding in which the design and construction of an electronic or laser speed measuring device (SMD) is an issue:

(c) Continuance. The court at the time of the formal hearing shall hear testimony concerning the infraction and, if necessary, may continue the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining evidence concerning an electronic speed measuring device and the certification thereof. If, at the time it is supplied, the evidence is insufficient, a motion to suppress the readings of such device shall be granted.

(d) Maintaining Certificates as Public Records. Any certificate, affidavit or foundational evidentiary document allowed or required by this rule can be filed with the court and maintained by the court as a public record. The records will be available for inspection by the public. Copies will be provided on request. The court may charge any allowable copying fees. The records are available without a formal request for discovery. The court is entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that the document has been filed with the court. Evidence will not be suppressed merely because there is not a representative of the prosecuting authority present who actually offers the document. Evidence shall be suppressed pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule if the evidence in the certificate, affidavit or document is insufficient, or if it has not been filed as required.

So, it is pretty clear that if the information is inaccurate, shows that the maintenance wasn't up to date, or the records weren't with the court as required, the judge must dismiss the Seattle traffic ticket. And this happens often, which is why you hear speeding ticket attorneys in Seattle talking about it so much.

Related Posts:

Seattle Traffic Lawyer | Field Sobriety Tests

Seattle Traffic Lawyer | Overview

Seattle Traffic Lawyer | How We Can Help

If you aren't a Seattle traffic lawyer or the guy directly affected by this new court decision handed down by the Washington State Court of Appeals on Monday, then you probably don't care much about the decision. But if you are ever involved in a Seattle traffic accident where someone is injured and the cause of the accident is merely a traffic infraction (failing to yield, for example), then this decision could dramatically affect your life, for the better.

This entire case started with a tragic sequence of events. A guy is driving a van in Seattle, on a September morning in 2006. He is not drunk. He has not been taking any drugs. My guess is he was working or was driving to work. He was driving down the street in a southbound direction. It was a two way street, so traffic was coming at him in the other land in a northbound direction.

The guy needed to make a left turn, so he waited for all of the traffic to clear, or so he thought. What he didn't see was a lady on a bicycle proceeding in the northbound direction as well. As he started to make his left turn, she was crossing the street. He didn't see her until it was too late. Even though the lady was wearing a helmet, she suffered head injuries and died later that day. As he should have been, the driver was cited for failing to yield to oncoming traffic, a traffic citation, not a criminal act.

Over the next few months, King County looked into the possibility of filing criminal charges but decided against it. They have good Seattle traffic attorneys there, and they know that the legislature, several years ago, decriminalized traffic infractions (I say to make them easier to win and to save money on supplying attorneys to defendants) to make the process more efficient. The only possibility they really had was vehicular manslaughter, but that was ruled out because there was no evidence the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident. So they passed.

But, the City of Seattle, in all of their infinite wisdom, didn't think it was good enough to just let people live with the horror that is being the negligent party in a traffic accident. They wanted to criminalize the accident is serious injury was involved. So they passed a new assault statute. And I'm pretty sure this was the first case that was filed under that statute. And there was good reason why.

Since the driver had a competent Seattle traffic lawyer, it was obvious from the outset that the statute was invalid. It clearly criminalized a traffic infraction, which was specifically prohibited by the Washington State Legislature. But, when a motion to dismiss was filed, the trial judge balked. So, it was appealed to King County District Court, where the law was held invalid, and the charges ordered dismissed. Not satisfied with that, the City appealed it up to the Court of Appeals, which issued their ruling on the case on Monday. You can read the opinion here.

In a nutshell, this is what the Court of Appeals had to say:

Yielding the right of way is an act required by Title 46; or stated alternatively, turning left in front of a bicycle or other type of vehicle is an act prohibited by Title 46. However stated, Wilson's act -- whatever its consequence -- is only a traffic infraction under state law unless accompanied by the additional elements that would make it vehicular assault or vehicular homicide or driving while intoxicated or one of the other criminal offenses recognized in the exceptions under RCW 46.63.020. Seattle cannot classify failure to yield the right of way as a criminal offense merely by defining the "act" in a way that encompasses a particular result of the act.

Result? Law struck down. Driver released. Case closed.

But you should take this as a warning if you drive a vehicle in Seattle or anywhere else. If you get in trouble, don't wait to hire a good Seattle criminal attorney or a good Seattle traffic lawyer. Having legal representation can make a huge difference in your case. If nothing else, you should at least consult with a lawyer before making any decisions. At least then you will know your options and the consequences you face.

Related Posts:

Seattle Traffic Lawyer | How to Beat a DUI

Seattle Traffic Lawyer | How to Beat a Ticket