• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Following the vehicle in front of me to closely!?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

sue davison

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? WASHINGTON
I am contesting a ticket given to me by a state patrol officer......his opinion is " maam you were following the car ahead of you at an unsafe distance at the speed you were traveling" **************..I have search here and there in washington states laws and no where can I find that it dictates an exact following distance....I am finding answers such as..." keep with in a safe and prudent distance depending on your traveling speed and road conditions".....other references say use the "10 second" rule others say 4 seconds in good weather and on clear dry road conditions......I need some advise on how to handle this when I go into court......do I need to get an attorney? The officer also made 2 statements to me that were completely un-proffesional that gave me the feeling he was pulling rank or something....He not once asked to see the registration of my car or the proof that I had insurance......He didnt have me sign the ticket**************I have a clean driving record...I mean years, years ago I think I got a ticket for speeding.....how do I prepare for court....to me this is a case of my word against his.....the judge of course will rule on the side of the police officer....can you give me any advice, ideas. As my court date nears closer I am starting to feel a lot more anxiety over this whole thing......Should I just pay the stupid ticket**************.I really believe that I was not driving to close to the car in front of me....help me please.....SueWhat is the name of your state?
 


The Occultist

Senior Member
To end a sentence, you only need one period. That's one of the few ways language is simple; please take advantage of it.

Yes, this law is based solely on the officer's perspective. Odds are you will not win. Good luck.
 

lwpat

Senior Member
Your best option is to request a mitigation hearing. The officer will likely not be there so the judge will only hear your side. You may get a dismissal.
 

cepe10

Member
It is in your best interest to show up -- very good chance this guy will not show up - i beleive they rarley do in WA state - I had a ticket in e. wa that the LEO did not show - he only sent along a dispostion (and I think i could have got that thrown out if i had tried)

. if you can take a few pictures of the spot and have a good explaination that you were driving safely I think you may beat it.

from MD SHA
Maintain a safe distance ( at least 2 or 3 seconds) from the vehicle in front of you - when it passes some point, count "1001", "1002","1003", etc. If you pass that same point before you get to 1003, you're following too closely!

obviously this is for highway/freeway speeds - at slower speeds this spacing is not required.
 

racer72

Senior Member
lwpat said:
Your best option is to request a mitigation hearing. The officer will likely not be there so the judge will only hear your side. You may get a dismissal.
cepe10 said:
It is in your best interest to show up -- very good chance this guy will not show up - i beleive they rarley do in WA state - I had a ticket in e. wa that the LEO did not show - he only sent along a dispostion (and I think i could have got that thrown out if i had tried)
First to clear up a misconception that those not located in Washington may not know. Police officers are not required to appear in court for traffic tickets unless subpoena'd. The laws concerning traffic tickets, court appearances and how they are handled were overhauled in 1998. cepe, I seriously doubt you would have had the ticket thrown out. The disposition is all that is required now.


To the OP, you have little chance of winning this case. Your best option is to contest the ticket and ask for a deferral. The ticket will be set aside and if you recieve no other tickets in the next year, the ticket goes away. But if you do get another ticket, both hit your driving record (and insurance company) at the same time. For someone like you that has had a clean driving record, this is a very good option.
 

cepe10

Member
I know I won a case while in graduate school in E. Washington State in which the judge dismissed after the state patrol trooper was found to be incorrect and his testimony (dispostion only) was thrown out.

As a transportation engineer I would highly doubt the trooper in this case can in any way provide what the following distance or even time was... Sounds like he already had a presumed course of action.

I believe the constitution has a little blurb about "due process" and the "right to face one's accuser" I find any testimony in which the LEO doesn't even bother to show up worth less than nothing. After all, the trooper's in question if they want to be witnesses and produce testimony should have to perjure himself in person and be subject to cross-examination in a criminal case.

I can tell you for sure if I go to said trooper's home with a condemnation notice (for valid code violations which there are about 250,000 possibilities) and evict him and his family on the spot - he will be screaming bloddy murder for not getting his due process and the right to defend himself againt the alleged violations...
 

racer72

Senior Member
cepe10 said:
I believe the constitution has a little blurb about "due process" and the "right to face one's accuser"
Phrased incorrectly. There is no right to face one's accuser. The accused only have the right to confront the witnesses against them. In the US, it is the government entity that is the accuser, whether it be a local, state or federal. The prosecution is in court representing the accuser. If a defendent in a case wishes to confront a witness, specifically the officer that witnessed the violation, they must subpoena the witness.
 

cepe10

Member
racer72 said:
Phrased incorrectly. There is no right to face one's accuser. The accused only have the right to confront the witnesses against them. In the US, it is the government entity that is the accuser, whether it be a local, state or federal. The prosecution is in court representing the accuser. If a defendent in a case wishes to confront a witness, specifically the officer that witnessed the violation, they must subpoena the witness.

again that's your twisted neo-**** interpretation. who's the prosecutor???when there is no one in the court representing the state???? is it the judge?? Gee the trier of fact acting both as judge and prosecutor then allowing a witness to not have to appear or face cross examination...

liberty probably doesn't mean much to you. what comes around goes around.
 

cepe10

Member
racer72 said:
First to clear up a misconception that those not located in Washington may not know. Police officers are not required to appear in court for traffic tickets unless subpoena'd. The laws concerning traffic tickets, court appearances and how they are handled were overhauled in 1998. cepe, I seriously doubt you would have had the ticket thrown out. The disposition is all that is required now.
Hmmmm. looks like the rules for evidence do apply.... so an LEO not showing up and not providing foundation for speed measurements is actually not valid in WA state.

CrRLJ 6.13
EVIDENCE


(a) Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence are applicable
to criminal prosecutions.

(b) Test Reports by Experts.

(1) Generally. The official written report of an expert
witness which contains the results of any test of a substance or
object which are relevant to an issue in a trial shall be
admitted in evidence without further proof or foundation as prima
facie evidence of the facts stated in the report if the report
bears the following certification:


TEST CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury that:

1. I performed the test on the (substance) (object) in
question;

2. The person from whom I received the (substance) (object)
in question is:
________________________________________________________;

3. The document on which this certificate appears or to which
it is attached is a true and complete copy of my official report;
and

4. Such document is a report of the results of a test which
report and test were made by the undersigned who has the
following qualifications and experience:

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________.



_________________________________
Signature

_________________________________
Title

_________________________________
Business Address and Phone


(2) Exclusion of Test Reports. The court shall exclude test
reports otherwise admissible under section (b) if:

(i) a copy of the certified report or certificate has not
been delivered or mailed to the defendant or the defendant's
lawyer at least 14 days prior to the trial date or, upon a
showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, or

(ii) in the case of an unrepresented defendant, a copy of
this rule in addition to a copy of the certified report or
certificate has not been delivered or mailed to the defendant at
least 14 days prior to the trial date or, upon a showing of
cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, or

(iii) at least 7 days prior to the trial date, or, upon a
showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, the
defendant has delivered or mailed a written demand upon the
prosecuting authority to produce the expert witness at the trial.

(c) Breathalyzer Maintenance, Simulator Thermometer, BAC
Verifier, and Simulator Solution Certificates.

(1) Admission of Certificate. In the absence of a request to
produce a Breathalyzer maintenance technician, a BAC Verifier
Data Master infrared instrument technician, or the person
responsible for preparing or testing simulator solutions made at
least 7 days prior to trial or such lesser time as the court
deems proper, certificates substantially in the following forms
are admissible in lieu of a state expert witness in any court
proceeding held pursuant to RCW 46.61.506 for the purpose of
determining whether a person was operating or in actual physical
control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of
intoxicating liquors:


(1) Admission of Certificate. In the absence of proof of a
request 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
substantially in 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:


CERTIFICATION CONCERNING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
OF ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
AND LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES

I, ____________________, do certify under penalty of perjury
as follows:

I am employed with ____________________ as a
________________________________. I have been employed in such a
capacity for _____ years. Part of my duties include supervising
the maintenance and repair of all electronic and laser speed
measuring devices (SMDs) used by ____________________ (name of
agency).

This agency currently uses the following SMDs:
(List all SMDs used and their manufacturers and identify which
SMDs use laser technology.)

I have the following qualifications with respect to the above
stated SMDs:

(List all degrees held and any special schooling regarding the
SMDs listed above.)

This agency maintains manuals for all of the above stated
SMDs. I am personally familiar with those manuals and how each of
the SMDs are designed and operated. On _____ (date) testing of
the SMDs was performed under my direction. The units were
evaluated to meet or exceed existing performance standards. This
agency maintains a testing and certification program. This
program requires:

(State the program in detail.)

Based upon my education, training, and experience and my
knowledge of the SMDs listed above, it is my opinion that each of
these electronic pieces of equipment is so designed and
constructed as to accurately employ the Doppler effect in such a
manner that it will give accurate measurements of the speed of
motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by a trained
operator or, in the case of the laser SMDs, each of these pieces
of equipment is so designed and constructed as to accurately
employ measurement techniques based on the velocity of light in
such a manner that it will give accurate measurements of the
speed of motor vehicles when properly calibrated and operated by
a trained operator.

_________________________________
Signature


Dated: _________________________


(e) Continuance. The court at the time of trial shall hear
testimony concerning the alleged offense and, if necessary, may
continue the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining (1) the
maintenance technicians presence for testimony concerning the
working order of the Breathalyzer machine and the certification
thereof, (2) evidence concerning the working order of the BAC
Verifier Data Master instrument and the certification thereof,
(3) evidence concerning the preparation of the BAC Verifier Data
Master simulator solution and the certification thereof, or (4)
evidence concerning an electronic speed measuring device or laser
speed measuring device and the certification thereof. If, at the
time it is supplied, the evidence is insufficient, a motion to
suppress the results of such test or readings shall be granted.


[Amended effective September 1, 1987; September 1, 1998;
September 1, 2002.]
 

racer72

Senior Member
How many traffic court cases have you sat in on in the past 5 years? I have sat in on at least 200, probably more in King County. And too many times that I care to remember, the judge hearing the case has granted continuance to the defendant because they did not know the law and failed to subpoena the officer.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top