Speeding in WA and other ??'s

[nanook]

Got my first speeding ticket the other day, 70+ in a 60, which I would certainly have argued had I not noticed that I didn't have a current proof of insurance with me.

Question 1: Can your vehicle be towed in a situation like that, where you don't have the paper proving you have insurance? (but you of course have it and can call the insurance company to verify)

Question 2: I'm positive he didn't have any radar/laser detection system going, and he didn't pace me - so he asked me how fast I thought I was going and I said I had the cruise control set at 75 (which is true) - Is it a requirement to either have proof via radar or them pace your speed? Also, I've heard varrying interpretations on what happens if you ask to see the radar and what impact that may have on the outcome of your visit with the judge. I'm thinking about buying a laser/radar detector, but if they don't have to "show" you the gun reading then it might be pointless to get one....your thoughts?

Question 3: I've looked at other postings in this forum and it suggests that WA doesn't have traffic school as an option, but mentioned deferment - does this tie into the second option on the back of my ticket where I ask for a "mitigation hearing?"

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these subjects

 

[mike]

Got my first speeding ticket the other day, 70+ in a 60, which I would certainly have argued had I not noticed that I didn't have a current proof of insurance with me.

Question 1: Can your vehicle be towed in a situation like that, where you don't have the paper proving you have insurance? (but you of course have it and can call the insurance company to verify)

Question 2: I'm positive he didn't have any radar/laser detection system going, and he didn't pace me - so he asked me how fast I thought I was going and I said I had the cruise control set at 75 (which is true) - Is it a requirement to either have proof via radar or them pace your speed? Also, I've heard varrying interpretations on what happens if you ask to see the radar and what impact that may have on the outcome of your visit with the judge. I'm thinking about buying a laser/radar detector, but if they don't have to "show" you the gun reading then it might be pointless to get one....your thoughts?

Question 3: I've looked at other postings in this forum and it suggests that WA doesn't have traffic school as an option, but mentioned deferment - does this tie into the second option on the back of my ticket where I ask for a "mitigation hearing?"

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on these subjects

1. My recollection is that the police have the ability to search the DMV database to determine whether your car is insured. If you have insurance then they can give you a summons for not having that information readily available in an appropriate format such as your insurance card, with some states allowing a binder letter from their insurance or the policy. I don't know what happens if the car is uninsured in the database but in some states your license can be suspended until you deal with the summons and pay the fee.

2. From my understanding there is no current law that requires the officer to show you their radar gun, if used. But radar is not the only method that can be used to track but also pacing, as you mentioned and the officer can testify that for a certain period of time the speed of the vehicle being followed didn't drop below X miles per hour. This also does not mean that you cannot use typical discovery devices to determine what type of gun was used, when it was last serviced, the kind of training that the officer received before using it, etc.

3. No -- a mitigation hearing is an informal hearing (no jury) and is similar to an arbitration request in small claims court. You can explain the circumstances, plead not guilty, etc. The result is binding upon you and not appealable and there can be the imposition of fines. From my understanding in these cases most have admitted that they committed an infraction but explain the circumstances.
Deferment is a different matter. I'm not sure if it applies in your situation and from what I know it is a method of dealing with criminal matters, especially DUI, and may be unique to the state of Washington. If a person completes a DUI program and does not have another offense, the first one is dismissed. Here is the link to the law concerning deferments:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=10.05