Dismiss case due to failure to file ticket within 48 hours

What is the name of your state?
WASHINGTON STATE, SEATTLE

-CASE
I recently was cited for speeding and according to WA state law if the filing date is more than two business days after the issuance of the ticket, then IRLJ Rule 2.2(d) applies, which says:


When a notice of infraction has been issued, the
notice shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction over the infraction
or with a violations bureau subject to such courts supervision. The notice
must be filed within 48 hours after issuance of the notice, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. A notice of infraction not filed within
the time limits of this section may be dismissed without prejudice.

-QUESTION:
My ticket was issued on a Sunday and filed on a Wednesday. Will this
rule apply, or the Sunday should be excluded and the ticket is
technically valid? Thanks in advance!

[BelizeBreeze]

excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

I guess you didn't read that part of your OWN post.

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

I guess you didn't read that part of your OWN post.

Hi BelizeBreeze, that's the question I'd like clarification. If it excludes the Sunday which I was cited and the ticket was filed on Wednesday, wouldn't that be over 48 hours even if the ticket is technically cited at 12:01 AM on Monday and most likely filed Wed. morning? I do see the "excluding Sat, sund, holidays..."

[BelizeBreeze]

That's a question for the courts to decide. But since you didn't think about putting the time the ticket was issued in your post do the math from that point starting on Monday.

[racer72]

I know of a couple of folks that have used that as their defense and the tickets were dismissed. Your ticket should have been filed by the end of the business day Tuesday.

[James Young]

Regardless of when the ticket was issued on Sunday, the counting starts on Monday and the math is easy.

Monday = 24 hours
Tuesday = 24 hour
Total = 48 hours.

If the ticket was not filed within those 48 hours, by Washington law, it is dismissed.

Originally Posted by James Young

Regardless of when the ticket was issued on Sunday, the counting starts on Monday and the math is easy.

Monday = 24 hours
Tuesday = 24 hour
Total = 48 hours.

If the ticket was not filed within those 48 hours, by Washington law, it is dismissed.

Sounds good. My ticket was issued at 6PM, and when I called to check the filing date, the court clerk, or whoever answered, said that I wouldn't be able to use the "48 hours thing" even though she's not suppose to give me any legal advice. What does she know anyways? Thanks for the feedback fellas.

Originally Posted by racer72

I know of a couple of folks that have used that as their defense and the tickets were dismissed. Your ticket should have been filed by the end of the business day Tuesday.

Ok, just got off the phone with the Adamns county district court prosecutor and asked her exactly the same thing. Her response was that I would have to start counting from MONDAY, and the officer has until WED to file it. It doesn't sound like BS since she's the prosecutor. Also, the do not have a time for the filing. Anybody know a traffic lawyer up to take this case?

[James Young]

bimmasabi writes:

Ok, just got off the phone with the Adamns county district court prosecutor and asked her exactly the same thing. Her response was that I would have to start counting from MONDAY, and the officer has until WED to file it. It doesn't sound like BS since she's the prosecutor. Also, the do not have a time for the filing. Anybody know a traffic lawyer up to take this case?

That sound too much like the usual disingenuous, dishonest tactics of prosecutors. I would not trust her to tell you the truth; in fact, I would expect her to lie. The way the law read is very clear. Yes, you start counting on Monday. Monday + Tuesday is 48 hours. Period. Anything filed on Wednesday is more than 48 hours even using her starting time.

Go to: [url]http://attorneypages.com[/url] and let them sort it out with her.

[CdwJava]

I may be missing something here - not being an attorney ... but, the WA law section posted had a couple of interesting word choices:

"A notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this section may be dismissed without prejudice.

The word "may" is discretionary. The section does not mandate that the citation be dismissed. When we see that in CA law, it is seen as a discretionary action and not a required one. And there may be case law on this one in WA as well, hence the DA may be right on the money.

Also, unless I miss my guess, "without prejudice" would seem to indicate that the citation could then be re-filed.

But, that's just my read on it.

- Carl

That's right CdwJava, the prosecutor may still charge you again and it's not garanteed to have it dismissed, as you pointed it out. I found this article regarding WA state traffic citations:

[url]http://miahdesign.com/ticket.htm[/url]

very useful info

Originally Posted by CdwJava

I may be missing something here - not being an attorney ... but, the WA law section posted had a couple of interesting word choices:

"A notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this section may be dismissed without prejudice.

The word "may" is discretionary. The section does not mandate that the citation be dismissed. When we see that in CA law, it is seen as a discretionary action and not a required one. And there may be case law on this one in WA as well, hence the DA may be right on the money.

Also, unless I miss my guess, "without prejudice" would seem to indicate that the citation could then be re-filed.

But, that's just my read on it.

- Carl

[James Young]

When a notice of infraction has been issued, the
notice shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction over the infraction
or with a violations bureau subject to such courts supervision. The notice
must be filed within 48 hours after issuance of the notice, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. A notice of infraction not filed within
the time limits of this section may be dismissed without prejudice.

The last sentence sounds gratuitous in relation to the other requirements. “Shall” and “must” are mandatory, not optional. If the situation obtains that the notice of infraction may be dismissed but is not required, then that negates the very language of the first part and ostensibly the reasoning behind those requirements as well. If that is the case then why even have the language in the rules in the first place?