Judge's abuse of power?

[FastbackJon]

What is the name of your state? Washington

I would like to know the limit of the Judge in determining guilt.

Let's say the law specifically states one thing, and that thing can be used to show the defendent is not guilty. Can the judge then legally ignore that part of the law, and say the defendent is guilty anyway because he/she didn't follow the judge's made up law?

Or is it illegal for a judge to decide against the law, and to make up his/her own court room rules for the defendent to abide by?

In my case, I had a medical exemption for a seatbelt issued from out of state. I thought it would be as easy as cake to go into the courtroom and contest the ticket, based on Washington State's law (RCW 46.61.688) that says that if a person has a written letter from a licenced physician that they are unable to wear their seatbelt, then the seatbelt law does not apply to them.

Well the court clerk and the judge reviewed my exemption and the issuing physician prior to the hearing, and found that it was in fact a real place and "official". But in the hearing, the judge made up his own law and said the exemption had to be from within the state, and that he wasn't going to except my out of state exemption.

Legally, Oregon is the only state to require defendents to have in-state medical exemptions for seatbelts.

So I'm left with a $116 fine, or I could appeal his judgement (based on his own made up law) for $140.

Was the judge wrong in ignoring my valid medical exemption and deciding against me and against the law, or was that within his power to do so?

 

[racer72]

Medical exemptions in Washington must be signed by doctors licensed by the state. If your doctor is not licensed to work in Washington, the judge is correct.

 

[FastbackJon]

I'm sorry but I believe you are wrong....

Under RCW 46.61.688:

(7) This section does not apply to an operator or passenger who possesses written verification from a licensed physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.

This makes no mention of which state the physician is in.

 

[CdwJava]

It says "licensed", that gives the judge some leeway to define it as he sees fit. There could also be some case law defining this issue that you are unaware of.

Sow us where it says, "licensed in any state"?

Your interpretation is just as good as his ... well, aside from the fact that HIS interpretation carries with it the weight of the court.

You can certainly try to appeal it if you wish. I'd say it's a 50/50 shot unless there is case law defining a "licensed physician" as one that is licensed within your state ... in which case, you'd likely lose.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Then there is RCW 18.120.020:

(7) "License," "licensing," and "licensure" mean permission to engage in a health profession which would otherwise be unlawful in the state in the absence of the permission. A license is granted to those individuals who meet prerequisite qualifications to perform prescribed health professional tasks and for the use of a particular title.

(8) "Professional license" means an individual, nontransferable authorization to carry on a health activity based on qualifications which include: (a) Graduation from an accredited or approved program, and (b) acceptable performance on a qualifying examination or series of examinations.

And, RCW 18.71.021:

License required.
No person may practice or represent himself or herself as practicing medicine without first having a valid license to do so.

This would seem to imply that to be a "licensed physician" under WA law, one would have to be licensed IN WA.

- Carl

 

[LSCAP]

Something is wrong with this.

If the guy was going cross country he would not have to get an exemption from a doctor in every state.

If he set up residency in the state, normally he has something like 30 days to comply.

He should discuss this with the District Attorney ( who theoretically represents all the citizens) and NOT the Assistant District Attorney.

The DA could reopen the case.

 

[CdwJava]

Something is wrong with this.

If the guy was going cross country he would not have to get an exemption from a doctor in every state.

However, we don't know he was a weary cross-country traveller. It coul dbe that he is a resident of WA and has had ample time to get such an exemption from his own doctor in that state.

He should discuss this with the District Attorney ( who theoretically represents all the citizens) and NOT the Assistant District Attorney.

In most counties you are not going to get to speak to THE DA. All you will get is an ADA. And depending on how WA treats traffic offenses, their may not be an ADA involved at any level (such as if they are considered civil affairs).

The DA could reopen the case.

Most likely he will have to appeal. However, this will likely cost him more than the fine.

- Carl

 

[FastbackJon]

I should talk to the DA, or at least try to. Thanks for that suggestion. I should have talked to them or the prosecuting attorney before going to court in the first place.

 

[CdwJava]

As an FYI, your citation was an infraction under WA law and is considered a civil offense and thus not generally under the jurisdiction of the DA.

- Carl

 

[nagel221]

I agree with you

It sounds like you have a case, although it is well beyond normal traffic court. If you have a disability that keeps you from wearing a seat belt and the locality forces you to wear a seat belt (hence, the fine) then your rights may have been violated under the federal disabilities act. I'd check there and be really sure that you want to go all the way to prove your point before pursuing this.

 

[CdwJava]

ADA doesn't apply. No "rights" were violated. Many medical conditions prevent people from legally driving, and if they are unable to comply with the requirements to legally drive they cannot do so.

The only issue to be decided here would be if the definition of a "licensed" physician includes those licensed in another state.

- Carl