Do have to chance of winning if I appeal the decision on my speeding ticket?

[Snyder81]

Hey guys, I just lost a district court case concerning a speeding infraction of going 65 in a 55 zone according to the Washington State Patrol. My defense was based on law, and the Judge's decision was very unfair and did NOT follow the law in my opinion. Here's the situation:

I was entering a highway and shortly after I entered the highway I was lasered by the Washington State Patrol at a speed of 65 MPH. There was no speed limit sign posted from the time I got onto the highway up until the point I was gunned(In fact the first speed limit sign was >3/10 of a mile FURTHER up the road from where the officer parked his car.) The law I was accused of violating was RCW 46.61.400 which is the basic speed limit law and I will paste that law here:

RCW 46.61.400
Basic rule and maximum limits.
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so controlled as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.
(2) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (1) of this section, the limits specified in this section or established as hereinafter authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds, and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of such maximum limits.

(a) Twenty-five miles per hour on city and town streets;

(b) Fifty miles per hour on county roads;

(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways.

The maximum speed limits set forth in this section may be altered as authorized in RCW 46.61.405, 46.61.410, and 46.61.415.

(3) The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions. END OF LAW



The reason the judge found me guilty in court was based on the evidence that I was exceeding the state statute maximum of 60 MPH on a highway unless otherwise posted. BUT, my defense was based on RCW 46.61.50 which says:

?No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible or visible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person."

And if you're wondering, yes, "traffic control devices" are required on Washington State Highways.

I pointed out the judge that the wording of "NO PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER IS ENFORCEABLE IF..." and explained that I believed that is the law and the way it is worded means that it is not up for debate. There was no visible speed limit sign nor had I passed a sign so the law was unenforceable.

My question is: In law, doesn't the "NO PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER IS ENFORCEABLE IF..." law supercede the speed limit law I was accused of violating??? If I appeal do I have a chance?

BTW, I've had no luck finding case law from higher courts regarding this issue. Can anyone help me out???

 

[Mill]

You can't win. Pay the ticket and move on. A lawyer could win or help you get a reduced fine/points. Don't ever fight anything when you are your own client.

 

[pulse8]

I can't believe you've done all this for a speeding ticket, but my view on it is that if you had no idea what the speed limit was, why did you assume it was 65?

If anything, you should've been going 55 until you found a posted speed.

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: Millenium
You can't win. Pay the ticket and move on. A lawyer could win or help you get a reduced fine/points. Don't ever fight anything when you are your own client.

I realized today that even though you're right, the court still tells you to bend over and grab your ankles.(and this defense was BASED on LAW, not opinion or emotion)

After the hearing was over, I asked for permission to speak and the judge allowed me to. I said, "Your honor, I do not understand how you can violate an explicit state statute that says this ticket is unenforceable."

The judges reply: "That is my decision."

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: pulse8
I can't believe you've done all this for a speeding ticket, but my view on it is that if you had no idea what the speed limit was, why did you assume it was 65?

If anything, you should've been going 55 until you found a posted speed.

Pulse8, I think you're missing the point. The point is that the law says explicitly that if a driving situation meets these conditions, then the alleged infraction is UNENFORCEABLE. The wording of this law leaves no room for interpretation. The question is: Did the judge follow the law when she made her decision? I believe that answer is no, but I'm looking for something solid that I can appeal this case on. And if you're wondering, this isn't about the money. It was only a $76 ticket, but the money isn't what matters. The point is that I defended myself based on the law and that law was stomped on by a Judge, who is supposed to uphold the law.

 

[bGIveNs33]

It must have just been a bad judge. I have foughten everyone of my tickets..(approx. 5) and came out better than I would have.

And no I didn't use a lawyer.

 

[dullard]

I've never taken a drivers test in Washington, but I'll give you my thoughts from my experiences in other states.

Every drivers manual from every state that I've gotten a license in says something like this (shortened to keep it clear):
"The speed limit on highways is X. This is to be assumed and obeyed at all times unless (1) a sign says otherwise or (2) the conditions at the time make driving speed X unsafe."
In fact many of the driving tests I've taken ask what the speed limit X is. Thus the states made it clear that you are required to know the speed limit as you enter each type of road. This is BEFORE you see any signs. If you see signs saying otherwise, then obey the sign instead of your assumed speed limit.

From the way I interpret what you posted, you were supposed to travel at the assumed speed limit of 60 mph until you hit the sign saying 55 mph (unless there is a clear specific hazzard). The region must have a specific hazard to warrent the drop from the standard highway speed of 55 mph. I guess you could argue that you were speeding 65 in a 60 zone IF you can argue that normal drivers wouldn't have identified that specific hazard. You'd still get a fine, but a smaller one. The unenforceable quote you gave is the key to this. But again, if the hazzard was obvious (such as being inside a city, being near sharp curves, etc.) then I doubt you can argue this.

It is the judges job to identify and rule from the INTENT of the law. I think it is obvious that the intent of the "unenforceable" law was to protect you if a sign was stolen or is missing and you would have no idea what to do. For example, if there is a blind intersection on the highway, often there is a short section where the speed limit is reduced. If the sign there was missing, it wouldn't be obvious that you had to slow down since you didn't know there was an intersection there (that is the definition of a blind intersection). You seem to be arguing that there should be a speed limit sign posted every few feet so that whatever direction you look, the driver will always be able to see a sign telling him/her what the assumed speed limit is. I doubt that that was the intent of the "unenforceable" law.

 

[Cyberian]

?No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible or visible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person."

Is a speed limit sign considered a 'traffic control device'?
I think that in NY a 'traffic control device' is a traffic light, stop sign, yield sign, etc.

 

[Snyder81]

Yes, a speed limit sign falls under the definition of traffic control device according to the MUTCD(Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) published by the FHWA and required by CFR 23 to be followed by all states.

 

[Thegonagle]

I can't believe you even went through that, without a lawyer, trying to argue with the judge, who is already pissed off enough at you for being a belligerent punk over 10 MPH and wasting the court's time.

In short, no you can't win. The law you were breaking is based on the speed limit. You were speeding, the cop knows it, the judge knows it, and you know it.

 

[SaintGRW]

in NY traffic control device is like a turn signal or something along that line, as for highways asume it's 55 unless otherwise stated, if you were still in the lane that comes off the on ramp and he clocked you before you merged he could probably say that the safe speed limit is the 45 or whatever the suggested speed on the on ramps there are. never asume a road is 65 unless you see a sign. or it's the thruway, never question a judges opinion. ask for your hearing to be moved to a DA night and he will work with you, don't try to get the judge to drop you tickets or anything.

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: Garfang
I can't believe you even went through that, without a lawyer, trying to argue with the judge, who is already pissed off enough at you for being a belligerent punk over 10 MPH and wasting the court's time.

In short, no you can't win. The law you were breaking is based on the speed limit. You were speeding, the cop knows it, the judge knows it, and you know it.

First off, you need to get your ego in check. "Belligerent punk????" Second, I work my 40 hours a week just like most other people. I'm not 16 or 17 as I assume would fit your definition of a "belligerent punk," but rather I'm 21, about to get out of college, etc. And why should I not argue with the judge if I have the law backing me up. Screw your "Lay down and take it" attitude. And I'm wasting the court's time? Hardly. The court is wasting my time. The speed I was driving poses absolutely no threat to other drivers...read some of the WSDOT info below. It's attitude's like yours that allow the law to walk all over common citizens. The bottom line is that our court system is set up based on the law, and I used that law for my defense. The judge did not make her decision based on the superceding law, but rather more on her opinion.


The reason I fought the ticket in the first place is that the speed limit on this highway is unfairly(and unsafely) low. It is considerably slower than a "reasonable" driver drives on this particular highway. Read this WSDOT page you smart aleck:


From the WSDOT(For the record, the 85th Percentile speed at this particular location is 65.xx MPH, WELL over the 55MPH speed limit). Read this and you tell me who is in the wrong: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fossc/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm

And one more "For the record"...Washington State Department of Transportation has NO RECORD of an engineering study EVER being performed on this road. I asked them, "What is the speed limit based upon then?" The traffic engineer said, "Well, it used to be 70mph, but the oil embargo of 19(72 or 74) and the passing of the National Speed Limit made the limit 55. I said "But that was repealed or drastically altered in 1995 by the Republican Congress, right?" Traffic engineer says "Yep." I said "Well why hasn't there been a study done since the National Speed Limit was repealed?" and he answered "Because no one has really pushed for one."

So this is the kind of BS that my ticket is based upon in the first place(Which is really what pissed me off). That is why I fought so hard to beat this ticket, because it is beareaucracy run amuck.

The MUTCD clearly states that (This is not verbatim, I don't have the web page open) "After an engineering study or engineering judgement has been completed, the speed limit may be determined and posted at that location."

So I ask you this? If the state doesn't follow the rules, why should I? Do we live in a democracy(well, a Republic actually) or a hypocrisy?

 

[StageLeft]

Goodluck. I can see in your case it may be worth getting to the bottom of this because although it's over a small speeding ticket it's more on the principle of it now. You appear to have your sh*t in a pile so hopefully you can get something proper out of all of this.

 

[N8Magic]

The bottom line is that our court system is set up based on the law, and I used that law for my defense. The judge did not make her decision based on the superceding law, but rather more on her opinion.

Actually, the bottom line is that you were speeding and got caught by the police.

The judge is not going to set a precident that will allow speeders to get off on a small technicality such as this. By your interpretation of the law, anyone who is caught speeding but cannot see a traffic control device should be deemed innocent. Does that make any sense to you?

Next, the fact that you did not see a speed limit sign upon your entrance to the highway does not exempt you from speeding because of the other paragraph you quoted: "(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways."
Basically that section states that in the absence of a speed limit sign that states otherwise, the limit on a highway is 60 miles per hour. That in itself trashes your case, and makes you guilty of the charge.

Sorry, but you will never win this case.

 

[Vic]

You cannot win. I have fought all my tickets (quite a few in my foolish youth) and have lost far more than I have won (although I have won a few). Hiring a lawyer is only for fools, traffic infractions are not criminal and (in every courtroom I've ever sat in) defendants with a lawyer ALWAYS lost and paid the full fine while defendants without a lawyer usually at least got off with a reduced fine.
Why can't you win? The only way to get off on a traffic infraction is to prove that you were not speeding at all. That's it. And sometimes not even then. If the cop says you did 70 in a 60 but you manage to convince the judge that you were only doing 65, guess what? you still lose. Your case, while you may be right, is still the same.
Also, the smaller or more rural the jurisdiction, the more likely that you will be shafted. Tickets are all about revenue generation. Money, money, money. I once fought ticket I got in the Southern District of Douglas County, OR. The "courthouse" was a room in the Justice of the Peace's private residence in Glendale, OR (pop 600) and did not have any recording devices, not even a court reporter. I fought the case so well that the Justice of the Peace actually said that "the state had not met its burden of preponderence of the evidence," complimented me on my "professional" defense, and then proceeded to find me guilty (80 in a 65, fine reduced to ~$150). I asked her (paraphrased) "WTF?" and she politely told me that she finds everyone guilty in traffic infractions, regardless of the evidence, that's how she gets paid.
Welcome to the REAL government. :|

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: N8Magic

The bottom line is that our court system is set up based on the law, and I used that law for my defense. The judge did not make her decision based on the superceding law, but rather more on her opinion.

Actually, the bottom line is that you were speeding and got caught by the police.

The judge is not going to set a precident that will allow speeders to get off on a small technicality such as this. By your interpretation of the law, anyone who is caught speeding but cannot see a traffic control device should be deemed innocent. Does that make any sense to you?

Next, the fact that you did not see a speed limit sign upon your entrance to the highway does not exempt you from speeding because of the other paragraph you quoted: "(c) Sixty miles per hour on state highways."
Basically that section states that in the absence of a speed limit sign that states otherwise, the limit on a highway is 60 miles per hour. That in itself trashes your case, and makes you guilty of the charge.

Sorry, but you will never win this case.

I certainly see things from your perspective and I definitely value the opinions that differ from mine as it helps me to better evaluate the situation.

The bottom line is that the speed limit should be 55 in the first place. I am working on this right now with the WSDOT. I just wish that our state had the same fair laws that the state of California has regarding speeding. In California, speed limits are required to be "legitimized" by traffic engineering studies...here in good ol' Washington state, politicians can set them at whatever the hell speed they want and force citizens to pay out the wazoo for them.

Let's be honest: Do State Troopers give out tickets for going 65 or 67 in a 55 or 76 in a 70 because the driver is driving at a speed that is threating to safety? NO. They give them out because most people won't fight it and the state profits from this practice. Until enough people start fighting their tickets and at least make the court system work for their money, this injustice will stand.

And yeah, I didn't win the case this morning, I got walked all over by an oppressive state who's primary traffic court goal is revenue generation.

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Goodluck. I can see in your case it may be worth getting to the bottom of this because although it's over a small speeding ticket it's more on the principle of it now. You appear to have your sh*t in a pile so hopefully you can get something proper out of all of this.

Skoorb, thanks for the verbal support. I am by no means "anti-government" or "conspiracy theorist", but I have an analytical attitude about a lot of issues. If I get nailed for speeding I want to know why the speed limit is so dang low. And yes, I believe it is worth getting to the bottom of this, not for money but rather on priciple. No one is paying me to do this. Some of you who are so quick to jump all over me and scream "guilty" should review your own lives and perhaps contribute to society through change instead of just bending over and taking it and thinking "someone else will take care of it...why bother." All the time with the laws that are passing we get closer and closer to a police state and I hear this all the time: "Well why should I care about that law? I have nothing to hide; I do no wrong." That's not the point. The point is that this country is supposed to be a "free" country, and we get further and further from "free" everytime an oppressive law is passed.


Me: "But that's not fair."
Government: "It doesn't matter if it's fair, it's the LAW!"

 

[TNTrulez]

Go for it.

 

[johnjbruin]

yeah. I say go for it. You seem to know what you are talking about.
Plus the amazing thing is that I have thought about this instance also. I always wondered in SoCal that once you turned on a street and the limit was like 30, but the signs were placed far apart so you have no clue of the speed limit. And if you got a speeding ticket(like going 45 or something), could you use this as a defense.
Therfore your situation does amuse me a little since I have thought about it before.
Anyway, try and see what happens.

 

[Cyberian]

The reason I fought the ticket in the first place is that the speed limit on this highway is unfairly(and unsafely) low.

Well now, this is a different argument entirely.
Unfortunately the law is what it is now. Working to change it is a good idea, but I don't think you can get it changed retroactively.

 

[Thegonagle]

Snyder81

I agree with your sentiments and feel your pain. I'm no stranger to the radar gun myself, having been pulled over more times than I can count for my driving "style," and having received at least 6 speeding tickets, maybe more.

I also should have worded the ?belligerent punk? statement differently, namely by not calling you one. I apologize.

But I think you?re taking the wrong tack. Just because there isn?t a sign at the top of an entrance ramp, it does not mean that the speed limit on the roadway you are entering does not apply until you encounter the next sign. And if that wasn?t the first time you?ve ever used that road, your defense is disingenuous, and with a modicum of research on the prosecution?s part, is probably easy to disprove.

It is a judge?s duty to interpret the law, so her ?opinion? is the law.

If you want to appeal, I suggest that you get a lawyer and do it right. I?m not familiar with the roadway in question, you really might be on to something with the engineering studies, and perhaps you, as a citizen, can help make a difference for motorists who do use it.

 

[Snyder81]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

The reason I fought the ticket in the first place is that the speed limit on this highway is unfairly(and unsafely) low.

Well now, this is a different argument entirely.
Unfortunately the law is what it is now. Working to change it is a good idea, but I don't think you can get it changed retroactively.

Cyberian, although I lost in court today, I had a major personal victory this afternoon regarding that unfair speed limit. I was finally able to get ahold of the "right" person from the Washington State Dept of Transportation. He is the lead engineer for my region and after we spoke for a while, he agreed to devote resources into surveying that particular stretch of highway starting this spring(resources are tied up elsewhere at this point). It was added to his project list which makes me very happy.

I know in my initial posts it just seems that I am trying to dodge a ticket, but it is much deeper than that. I am working very hard to try to get FAIR speed limits and/or laws into effect. In this particular scenario where I received a ticket, it is a heavy merging area where often times a car is forced to speed up to merge into traffic(as opposed to slamming on the brakes and having a pile of stopped cars behind you). Well, the Washington State Patrol patrols this particular area a LOT, and they stop a LOT of folks and hand out a LOT of tickets. Many times you don't have the option of going the speed limit if you wish to avoid conflict with other cars...the State Patrol knows that and they see it as a golden opportunity to hand out speeding tickets.

In California, they have very specific speedtrap laws that actually offer drivers a fair shot at beating a ticket. In Washington, these laws are much more vague and rest in the hands of the traffic courts(Traffic Court - see the IRS in uniform). I am not an advocate of those idiots who blow by 55mph traffic at 75mph or 80mph, but I am advocate of fair speed limits. What Washington doesn't seem to realize is that settings fair speed limits saves a lot of lives(See - Insurance company studies vs. independent traffic research). Insurance companies tell you SPEED KILLS. Traffic engineers tell you SPEED VARIANCE KILLS. There is a lot of information out there on this topic and it is certainly worth researching if you are interested(LOTS of FhWA reports and USDOT reports to read).

I would love to see some of the Californian laws implemented into Washington State statutes...maybe some day with a lot of work and a few sympathetic ears.