WTF? How should I fight this?
- Thread starter qtrain
- Start date
- Status
Quoted for the insulting of a mod. Enjoy your stay.
Yea, I'm sorry about that. Made a quick post on tapatalk and didn't know who it was.
Looking at case files for the citation code I found this my code was (46.61.210)
After this court granted the City's motion for discretionary review of both rulings, we held that RCW 46.61.210 does not apply when a police officer is in the process of stopping a motorist for a traffic infraction
After this court granted the City's motion for discretionary review of both rulings, we held that RCW 46.61.210 does not apply when a police officer is in the process of stopping a motorist for a traffic infraction
in spite of the op being banned I will offer up proof that your interpretation is incorrect and I was right from the beginning.
the case in question is exactly like the ops in that the officer pulled over the vehicle in question and issued them a "failure to yield to an emergency vehicle". the driver was found guilty and appealed. on appeal her conviction was reversed based on the very grounds I stated above, i.e. since he was being stopped and not passed by the cop he should not have been cited for "failure to yield". the state appealed to the state supreme court and they ruled that the reversal was correct and again used my reasoning in their decision.
STATE v. WEAVER, No.
Temporary or permanent?
I would love to be a fly on the wall at his court date. If he takes the suggestion I gave him and takes that court case with him he will get the failure to yield dismissed in a new york minute.
if the officer didn't write him up for the other stuff there is a good chance of him walking out scott free. Until the officer catches him with the SLPs again LOL!
Actually if you read that ruling carefully and in its entirity, it fully supports my position in almost the exact words I have used to state my position. The issue in that case is not the same as the OP's.
You may have noted that the OP was not charged with evasion. He was charged with failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. When the lights came on, he did not immediately pull over, after he decided to pull over the officer conducted an investigation.
If the officer asked the OP if he knew he was being pulled over, he probably lied as you have indicated you would do. "No sir, i didn't know you were pulling me over." At that point he admitted violating the failure to yield to an emergency vehicle law in WA.
If he had said i know you were trying to pull me over but I didn't stop he might have been charged with their version of evasion.
Catch 22. Is it convictable, ask a judge? I would suggest many have been convicted under that particular law. But it is certainly citable for anyone not being completely honest during an investigation. To avoid it the future, see the procedure I outlined in a previous post.
well seeing as how you have just proven your inability to read and understand the english language I am going to just drop it. I read that ruling in it's entirety and it is almost verbatim what the op was charged with.
the lady was pulled over and she pulled over to the left shoulder, the officer told her to move to the right shoulder which she then did and was given a "failure to yield" ticket.
from the FACTS of the case:
¶ 3 Weaver slowed down, signaled to the left, and pulled to the left shoulder of the freeway. Trooper Pardue directed Weaver to move across the freeway to the right shoulder, which Weaver did. Trooper Pardue then cited Weaver for, among other infractions, failing to yield under RCW 46.61.210.1
¶ 4 Weaver contested the infraction and the District Court found that she committed the infraction of failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. Weaver appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the District Court's ruling and held that the failure to yield statute applies only when the approaching emergency vehicle is responding to an “actual emergency,” not when making a traffic stop. We granted the State's motion for discretionary review.
the state supreme court upheld the appeal on the grounds above.
where the **** you got she was "evading" is beyond me since the word is nowhere in the ruling.
and just based on your totally wrong reading of this and your assumptions made in your answers there is no way in HELL I would follow any advice you gave on pretty much anything.
the lady was pulled over and she pulled over to the left shoulder, the officer told her to move to the right shoulder which she then did and was given a "failure to yield" ticket.
from the FACTS of the case:
¶ 3 Weaver slowed down, signaled to the left, and pulled to the left shoulder of the freeway. Trooper Pardue directed Weaver to move across the freeway to the right shoulder, which Weaver did. Trooper Pardue then cited Weaver for, among other infractions, failing to yield under RCW 46.61.210.1
¶ 4 Weaver contested the infraction and the District Court found that she committed the infraction of failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. Weaver appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the District Court's ruling and held that the failure to yield statute applies only when the approaching emergency vehicle is responding to an “actual emergency,” not when making a traffic stop. We granted the State's motion for discretionary review.
the state supreme court upheld the appeal on the grounds above.
where the **** you got she was "evading" is beyond me since the word is nowhere in the ruling.
and just based on your totally wrong reading of this and your assumptions made in your answers there is no way in HELL I would follow any advice you gave on pretty much anything.
Last edited:
If it were me I would go to court and talk with the judge. Failure to yield is meant for people who do not pull over for emergency vehicles or for people who take off when the red lights are turned on. Unless you drove for several blocks before stopping I believe the judge would change the charge (to lower the assigned points) and reduce the fine drastically.
if you read the ruling I posted the judge should dismiss the "failure to yield" portion of the tickets. the other stuff, if there is other stuff, he should own up to and take his medicine.
This in no way matches the facts of the case as stated. OP claimed he could decide when to pull over when he thought it was safe. He should have immediately stopped safely as clearly required by the statute you have previously cited and by the case law you have cited.
You can argue all you want, but you are spreading mistruths which can get others in trouble with LE.
my argument with YOU is that the ticket for "failure to yield" was a bogus ticket. you keep avoiding that FACT. and until you actually prove my other statement wrong i.e. that you can proceed to a safer spot to stop. I wish you would shut your pie hole because you are making assumptions not based on anything but your inability to read.
YOU say he should have stopped safely as clearly required by the statute, I agree. but HE stated that where the cop flipped on his lights was NOT SAFE. and you have ZERO proof to show otherwise. ALL you are doing is ASSUMING that the cop flipped on his lights where it was safe. the op says there was NO SHOULDER there. since when is NO SHOULDER a place where you can "safely stop". but in either case the "failure to yield" is, as I said and you apparently still don't get is a bogus charge. you cannot be charged with "failure to yield" when you are being pulled over by the officer. That is plain english in the ruling. don't understand why you still insist otherwise
edited to add: and if you are going to insist on saying the case says something it doesn't QUOTE IT. don't just say it does. you know Like I quoted what I did that proved you were full of shit.
Last edited:
I agree with RDJ 100%. Take pictures/video of the area at the same time of day and measure the distance. Look into requesting the in car cam footage be show. If the distance is reasonably short the judge should side with you. If things don't go your way appeal and get a lawyer. op seems to be being treated in the same manner here as he was by the officer who pulled him over.
Have you considered the very real possibility that the officer was actually proceeding to another call and broke off from that call to deal with a speeding motorist that did not yield right of way.
Your strategy assumes that the officer was not competent and wrote the ticket incorrectly because you do not possess the totality of the facts of the case.
Since you have not discussed the case with the officer, you are proceeding from a potentially false assumption that will get the OP convicted on all charges.
You have suggested that the OP print off the law and hand it to the judge. This is a poor legal advice. The judge is familiar with the law and does not need to be reminded by a layman.
You are not an attorney. Stop giving marginal legal advice. You are not qualified to give legal advice.
OP should hire an attorney to represent his interests in this case.
just as much as you have considered the opposite might be the case. in FACT the op said:
which give me MUCH more of a basis for my comments than you have. There is NO evidence that the cop "was on his way to another call". ZERO. My money is on the cop TELLING him he was pulled over for a modified exhaust at some point in the conversation. I go by what the op stated in my comments unlike you who ASSUME shit that isn't there
no my comment assumes that the officer did not have a clear understanding of the statute and wrote the ticket incorrectly. what I have is the OPs story which I was responding to. what you have is, again ZERO. well not zero exactly ALL you have are assumptions that you are making so you can argue a non-point.
again I am going off the Ops story as posted. which is more than you are using since you also have not "discussed the case with the officer and are proceeding from a potentially false assumption". and if what I said I would do doesn't work then the op would likely be convicted regardless. so again well done on making a non-point.
more proof that you are incapable of reading the English language. I did NOT say print off a copy of the law. I said print off a copy of the state supreme court ruling on the law. there is a difference.
what I recommended is simply good preparation for a court date. believe me I have done the same for traffic tickets and it is helpful. for you to assume that NOT taking evidence into court or proof of your proposed assertion is correct is a bad idea just further reinforces the fact that you should keep your pie hole closed since you do not have a clue. and I did NOT give legal advice since I prefaced my remarks with this:
thank you captain obvious. and once again (since you are likely to ignore it the FIRST THREE TIMES I have said it. I did not claim to be an attorney nor did I give legal advice. your ASSumption once again has made you look foolish and shows you are arguing over shit that you don't understand. Here is what I posted:
and again:
now if YOU take what I said as legal adive it is because you fail at reading comprehension.
the advice I gave was based on the OPS story and not a bunch of rash assumptions like you have been making. if you are going to accuse me of misstating the ruling or misinterpreting the ruling post up the QUOTES and a justification for your thoughts. otherwise quit spouting your drivel as it makes no sense and is less than worthless.
that is certainly an option. and one I addressed above. if you can't find it let me know and I will paste it in here again (hint it is one of the RED quotes above). would I hire one based on the ops story? no, as it is not a criminal offense and there is ample evidence to get the 'FAILURE TO YIELD' dropped. if my defense failed THEN I would hire an attorney to handle the appeal because appeal it I would. but that is a choice the OP will have to make.
Last edited:
RDJ has this bang on... Happened to me in Alberta Canada, coming off an exit LEO turned his lights on as I came onto a bridge which led to a road with no shoulder. I continued up the road, 150 yards and turned off into the next possible exit. Once stopped LEO came to my window asked the usual and "why did you not stop immediately?" I replied, "Sir, I stopped at the saftest location for the both of us" He thanked me, went to his cruiser and returned. "You have a clean record, Ill let you go this time!" Great day and great officer.
The way OPs situation should have gone! Any reasonable officer would understand what the OP was doing... Providing he wasnt being a dick and taking his sweet ass time to stop!
The way OPs situation should have gone! Any reasonable officer would understand what the OP was doing... Providing he wasnt being a dick and taking his sweet ass time to stop!
Last edited:
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
