no signature on citation (with a twist)

What is the name of your state? Washington

Greetings from gray and damp Seattle, Washington. I've combed through the forums and the issue of no signature on the citation has been been discussed quite a bit and I apologize if we're beating a dead horse.

But here's what's interesting about my citation. I've gotten speeding tickets before and everytime the officer brings the citation to me, I sign it, he tears it off and keeps a carbon copy for himself. Pretty standard stuff. But this time the officer gave me my copy without me signing it. I talked to a co-worker and he told me he's seen tix dismissed for missing signature.

The twist is the words on the defendant signature field: WITHOUT ADMITTING TO HAVING COMMITTED EACH OF THE ABOVE OFFENSES, BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE OF INFRACTION AND PROMISE TO RESPOND AS DIRECTED ON THIS NOTICE.

The key word is RECEIPT. I didn't sign it, which means I didn't legally(?) receive the citation thus voiding it. This is what my co-worker's saying - is he correct?

Much obliged!

Wouldn't it suck if you were arrested next year, or denied a new DL, all because you tried skipping out on a citation you're guilty of all because you thought you could skip trial because you didn't sign it?

And if you do show up for your court date, then you won't be able to get it dismissed because you obviously had received the ticket.

You are only required to sign the citation if there is a mandatory court appearance. RCW 46.64.015, the statute that applies to the issuance of traffic citations, was amended a couple years ago to remove the requirement for the officer to sign the citation.

Demur to it?

In the section (below) cited by Racer72 I don't see anything about a ticket not needing a signature by defendant.

If a sig is required, but absent, then the service is defective, and you could demur to the ticket. Read about demurring.

Pug

RCW 46.64.015
Citation and notice to appear in court — Issuance — Contents — Arrest — Detention.


Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of the traffic laws or regulations which is punishable as a misdemeanor or by imposition of a fine, the arresting officer may serve upon him or her a traffic citation and notice to appear in court. Such citation and notice shall conform to the requirements of RCW 46.64.010, and in addition, shall include spaces for the name and address of the person arrested, the license number of the vehicle involved, the driver's license number of such person, if any, the offense or violation charged, and the time and place where such person shall appear in court. Such spaces shall be filled with the appropriate information by the arresting officer. An officer may not serve or issue any traffic citation or notice for any offense or violation except either when the offense or violation is committed in his or her presence or when a person may be arrested pursuant to RCW 10.31.100, as now or hereafter amended. The detention arising from an arrest under this section may not be for a period of time longer than is reasonably necessary to issue and serve a citation and notice, except that the time limitation does not apply under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the arrested person has committed any of the offenses enumerated in RCW 10.31.100(3);

(2) When the arrested person is a nonresident and is being detained for a hearing under RCW 46.64.035.

Pugilist said:

In the section (below) cited by Racer72 I don't see anything about a ticket not needing a signature by defendant.

Click to expand...

Doesn't say it has to be signed either.

phasmid123 said:

The key word is RECEIPT. I didn't sign it, which means I didn't legally(?) receive the citation thus voiding it. This is what my co-worker's saying - is he correct?

Click to expand...

He's wrong. Not signing it doesn't mean you didn't get it...just means you didn't acknowledge getting it.

You need to find some other line to fight this with...this one won't work for you.

Zigner said:

You need to find some other line to fight this with...this one won't work for you.

Click to expand...

You could try... "The officer wasn't wearing his hat when he gave you the ticket".

Automatic dismissal.

Honest.

juristictional attack

It would be a juristictional attack...

Non-service of summons and complaint(s) upon defendant fails to confer jurisdiction upon the Court over the person of the defendant.

Zigner said:

He's wrong. Not signing it doesn't mean you didn't get it...just means you didn't acknowledge getting it.

Click to expand...

- Actually you are the one who is incorrect according to US law

I'm gonna fight it

phasmid123 said:

The twist is the words on the defendant signature field: WITHOUT ADMITTING TO HAVING COMMITTED EACH OF THE ABOVE OFFENSES, BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE OF INFRACTION AND PROMISE TO RESPOND AS DIRECTED ON THIS NOTICE.

Click to expand...

Oh well - what the hell, doesn't hurt to give it a try. I will post the result so we can clear this up for everyone once and for all.

But seriously, it really bothers me that they can ding me for a ticket I didn't sign. Again, it's the word "receipt" that bugs the hell out of me on the ticket...let's say I ignore this ticket, after a few months they send me a default notice. I mean, I can tell them "what ticket? I never received a ticket! The copy you're showing me does not have my signature! What are you talking about? How can you prove that it was written to me and that I received it?" I think that's enough reasonable doubt? Or maybe due process wasn't followed by the officer.

phasmid123 said:

Oh well - what the hell, doesn't hurt to give it a try. I will post the result so we can clear this up for everyone once and for all.

But seriously, it really bothers me that they can ding me for a ticket I didn't sign. Again, it's the word "receipt" that bugs the hell out of me on the ticket...let's say I ignore this ticket, after a few months they send me a default notice. I mean, I can tell them "what ticket? I never received a ticket! The copy you're showing me does not have my signature! What are you talking about? How can you prove that it was written to me and that I received it?" I think that's enough reasonable doubt? Or maybe due process wasn't followed by the officer.

Click to expand...

Is all that worth the potential hassle of being pulled over for a very minor traffic offense and the officer finding out your license has been suspended and you have a warrant for your arrest. You are cuffed and taken to jail, you get a big ticket for driving while suspended, and your car is impounded and you get to pay those fees too. Washington law does not require signatures on tickets anymore. I sit in on traffic court in King County a few times a month, at least once a session someone tries the exact same lame argument you are crying about, not one of the those using that as a defense has had the ticket dismissed. Your no ticket claim is even lamer than the no ticket excuse. The officer has his notes from the stop and the call to verify your license and registration are logged, they wouldn't be if you weren't stopped. Either pay an attorney for the privelige of crying on his shoulder, a good one may find another out for you. The lame excuses you are using won't work. Traffic court judges have heard them all and your's are not new.

Washington State traffic infractions

"More people in Washington are fighting — and beating — traffic tickets than ever before. More than 158,000 traffic charges were dismissed last year, twice as many as a decade ago."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/unequaldefense/portraits/rainey.html

another great resource:
http://www.kcll.org/researchhelp/researchguides/trafficinfractions.html

You have very little to lose in defending yourself pro se or hiring one of the lawyers such as mentioned in the article for a reasonable fee.

FYI, You do have other defense strategies available beyond the defective service.

trieroffact said:

It would be a juristictional attack...

Non-service of summons and complaint(s) upon defendant fails to confer jurisdiction upon the Court over the person of the defendant.

Click to expand...

Fine - so point out where you see that the person being served needs to ACKNOWLEDGE being served?

trieroffact said:

- Actually you are the one who is incorrect according to US law

Click to expand...

Please explain how Federal law affects the service of a traffic ticket...

phasmid123 said:

Oh well - what the hell, doesn't hurt to give it a try. I will post the result so we can clear this up for everyone once and for all.

But seriously, it really bothers me that they can ding me for a ticket I didn't sign. Again, it's the word "receipt" that bugs the hell out of me on the ticket...let's say I ignore this ticket, after a few months they send me a default notice. I mean, I can tell them "what ticket? I never received a ticket! The copy you're showing me does not have my signature! What are you talking about? How can you prove that it was written to me and that I received it?" I think that's enough reasonable doubt? Or maybe due process wasn't followed by the officer.

Click to expand...

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE GETTING A TICKET. Basically, the officer will testify that he gave you the ticket. Then it's up to you to prove that he didn't. How are you going to do that?