WSR 05-15-110

RULES OF COURT

STATE SUPREME COURT


[ Filed July 18, 2005, 12:09 p.m. ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS TO IRLJ 1.2, IRLJ 2.1, IRLJ 2.2, IRLJ 2.4, IRLJ 2.6, IRLJ 3.1, IRLJ 3.3, IRLJ 3.4, IRLJ 3.5, IRLJ 4.2 AND IRLJ 6.7 )

)

)

)

)

ORDER

NO. 25700-A-826


The District and Municipal Court Judges' Association having recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments to IRLJ 1.2, IRLJ 2.1, IRLJ 2.2, IRLJ 2.4, IRLJ 2.6, IRLJ 3.1, IRLJ 3.3, IRLJ 3.4, IRLJ 3.5, IRLJ 4.2 and IRLJ 6.7, and the Court having approved the proposed amendments for publication;

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED:

(a) That pursuant to the provisions of GR 9(g), the proposed amendments as attached hereto are to be published for comment in the Washington Reports, Washington Register, Washington State Bar Association and Office of the Administrator for the Court's websites expeditiously.

(b) The purpose statement as required by GR 9(e), is published solely for the information of the Bench, Bar and other interested parties.

(c) Comments are to be submitted to the Clerk of the Supreme Court by either U.S. Mail or Internet E-Mail by no later than 90 days from the published date. Comments may be sent to the following addresses: P.O. Box 40929, Olympia, Washington 98504-0929, or Lisa.Bausch@courts.wa.gov. Comments submitted by e-mail message must be limited to 1500 words.

DATED at Olympia, Washington this 14th day of July 2005.
For the Court
Gerry L. Alexander

CHIEF JUSTICE



GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 1.2 DEFINITIONS



Purpose: The suggested change to IRLJ 1.2(c) more accurately defines the term "defendant" for purposes of parking infractions. Parking citations only name the registered owner of the vehicle, who may not be the person who committed the infraction. As a result, individuals other than the registered owner named on the citation often appear to contest or mitigate a parking ticket and these other persons should be included in the term "defendant" for purposes of the infraction rules.

The other suggested change to IRLJ 1.2, which is to add an additional definition in new section (m), is one of several rule changes the DMCJA is proposing for the purpose of replacing the term "community service" with the term "community restitution" throughout the Infraction Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In 2002, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 6627, which replaced the term "community service" with "community restitution" in statutes relating to the sentencing of adults and juveniles on felony, misdemeanor and infraction offenses. (Chapter 175, Laws 2002.) The DMCJA recommends that the language in the infraction rules be consistent with the statutory terminology, for ease of understanding and practice. The DMCJA suggests using the same definition for "community restitution" for IRLJ 1.2(m) that the legislature used in Senate Bill 6627. See, for example, RCW 9.94A.030(8).


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 1.2 DEFINITIONS


For the purposes of these rules:

(a) Infraction Case. "Infraction case" means a civil proceeding initiated in a court of limited jurisdiction pursuant to a statute that authorizes offenses to be punished as infractions.

(b) Notice of Infraction. "Notice of infraction" means a document initiating an infraction case when issued and filed pursuant to statute and these rules.

(c) Defendant. "Defendant" means a person named in a notice of cited for an infraction, a registered owner of a vehicle cited for a parking infraction, or the person who responds to the parking infraction or requests a hearing.

(d) Court. "Court" means a court of limited jurisdiction organized pursuant to RCW Title 3, RCW Title 35, or RCW Title 35A.

(e) Judgment. "Judgment" means any final decision in an infraction case, including but not limited to, a finding entered after a hearing governed by these rules or after payment of a monetary penalty in lieu of a hearing.

(f) Plaintiff. "Plaintiff" means the governmental unit issuing the notice of infraction, including, but not limited to, the state, a county, or a municipality.

(g) Department. "Department" means the Washington State Department of Licensing.

(h) Lawyer. "Lawyer" means any person authorized by Supreme Court rule to practice law.

(i) Statute. "Statute" means any state statute, local or county ordinance, resolution, or regulation, or agency regulation.

(j) Citing Officer. "Citing officer" means a law enforcement officer or other official authorized by law to issue a notice of infraction.

(k) Prosecuting Authority. "Prosecuting authority" includes prosecuting attorneys, city attorneys, corporation counsel, and their deputies, and assistants, or such other persons as may be designated by statute.

(l) Judge. "Judge" means any judge of any court of limited jurisdiction and shall include every judicial officer authorized to preside over infraction cases.

(m) Community Restitution. "Community restitution" means compulsory service, without compensation, performed for the benefit of the community by the defendant.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 2.1 NOTICE OF INFRACTION



( Purpose: IRLJ 2.1 (a) requires the use of infraction forms prescribed by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The Infraction Rules supersede all conflicting rules or statutes covering procedures for infractions, unless a rule indicates a statute or rule controls, pursuant to Rule 1.1 (c). Therefore, since Rule 2.1 (a) gives the AOC the authority to prescribe the infraction forms, the resulting forms should be cloaked with the authority of the rule itself.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 2.1 NOTICE OF INFRACTION



(a) Traffic Infraction Form Prescribed by Administrator for the Courts the Administrative Office of the Courts. Traffic infraction cases shall be filed on a form entitled "Notice of Traffic Infraction" prescribed by the Administrator for the Courts Administrative Office of the Courts; except that the form used to file cases alleging the commission of a parking, standing or stopping infraction shall be approved by the Administrator for the Courts Administrative Office of the Courts. Traffic infraction forms prescribed by the Administrative Office of the Courts are presumed valid and shall not be deemed insufficient by reason of defects or imperfections which do not prejudice substantial rights of the defendant.

(b) Contents. [Unchanged.]


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 2.2 INITIATION OF INFRACTION CASES



( Purpose: The purpose of the proposed change to IRLJ 2.2 (a) is to specify when "issuance" of a citation occurs. IRLJ 2.2 (d) requires that the filing of a notice of infraction occur within two days of the issuance of the notice of infraction. However, the rule does not specify when "issuance" of the notice occurs. When an infraction is not filed at the scene, but only after investigation, some courts have decided that the date of "issuance" is the date the infraction is filed with the court. However, IRLJ 2.2 (b) makes it clear that it is the citing officer or the prosecuting attorney who "issue" infractions. Therefore, the date of "issuance" of infractions should be the date the infraction is signed by the officer or by the prosecuting attorney.

Our courts should not "issue" infractions, yet specifying that an infraction is "issued" on the date it is filed would more appropriately line up with court-issued infractions. (Please note that IRLJ 2.2, as currently written, modifies RCW 7.80.050, which states that only the court may issue a citation when the civil infraction is not committed in the officer's presence.)

Rule 2.2(d) has long been the subject of debate and confusion. The rule is intended to ensure that infractions are filed within a reasonable time after they are written. The utility of requiring the filing of infractions a second time, however, is very low. In addition, many of the infractions which are dismissed without prejudice for late filings are not filed again. The proposed amendment seeks to strike a compromise between the need for timely filing and the stated purpose of the IRLJ, for the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every infraction case.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 2.2 INITIATION OF INFRACTION CASES



(a) Generally. An infraction case is initiated by the issuance, service, and filing of a notice of infraction in accordance with this rule. An infraction is issued on the date the infraction is signed by the citing officer or prosecuting authority.

(b) Who May Issue. A notice of infraction may be issued, upon certification that the issuer has probable cause to believe, and does believe, that a person has committed an infraction contrary to law:

(1) By a citing officer. The infraction need not have been committed in the officer's presence, except as provided by statute;

(2) By the prosecuting authority.

(c) Service of Notice. A notice of infraction may be served either by:

(1) The citing officer serving the notice of infraction on the person named in the notice of infraction at the time of issuance;

(2) The citing officer affixing to a vehicle in a conspicuous place the notice of a traffic infraction if it alleges the violation of a parking, standing, or stopping statute; or

(3) The citing officer or the prosecuting authority filing the notice of infraction with the court, in which case the court shall have the notice served either personally or by mail, postage prepaid, on the person named in the notice of infraction at his or her address. If a notice of infraction served by mail is returned to the court as undeliverable, the court shall issue a summons.

(d) Filing of Notice. 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 court's supervision. The notice must be filed within two five days of issuance of the notice, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. A In the absence of good cause shown, a notice of infraction not filed within the time limits of this section may shall, upon motion, be dismissed without with prejudice.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 2.4 RESPONSE TO NOTICE



Purpose: To provide specific authority permitting written statements for contested hearings and mitigation hearings to be submitted by e-mail. IRLJ 2.4, 2.6 (c) and 3.5 allow contested hearings and mitigation hearings to be heard by written statements. Many courts now allow written statements for both types of hearings to be submitted by e-mail. However, the IRLJ, as currently written, require that both types of statements be signed under penalty of perjury, and the rules do not specify how to sign a written statement submitted by e-mail under penalty of perjury. The receipt of a typed signature should satisfy the need for certification under the provisions of this rule.

The suggested changes to the rule delete any reference to the certification statute, RCW 9A.72.085. Instead, the IRLJ will provide the authority required to allow typewritten signatures. The infractions covered by these rules are civil and allow for greater informality, as is already reflected in the procedures allowing written statements to be used in both contested and mitigation hearings. Individuals already have the opportunity to deny that the signature on a written statement is their signature, although very few ever have. If a defendant were to deny that he or she wrote the letter or e-mail, a hearing would be held in either case and the court would weigh the testimony and determine whether to grant a new contested or mitigation hearing.

To save time and money, as well as provide greater convenience to court users, some courts of limited jurisdiction are already allowing defendants to e-mail statements contesting or mitigating infractions, and other courts are anxious to start this practice, given the widespread acceptance and use of e-mail communications in this state. The changes to the infraction rules are necessary to specify how to submit written statements via e-mail, and establish standard statewide rules for those communications.

An additional suggested change to subsection (b) (4) is to add a separate form for written statements for mitigation hearings. The current rule includes a form for written statements for contested hearings, but not mitigation hearings. There is no reason not to include a form for written statements for mitigation hearings, as well.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 2.4 RESPONSE TO NOTICE



(a) Generally. A person who has been served with a notice of infraction must respond to the notice within 15 days of the date the notice is personally served or, if the notice is served by mail, within 18 days of the date the notice is mailed.

(b) Alternatives. A person may respond to a notice of infraction by:

(1) Paying the amount of the monetary penalty in accordance with applicable law, in which case the court shall enter a judgment that the defendant has committed the infraction;

(2) Contesting the determination that an infraction occurred by requesting a hearing in accordance with applicable law;

(3) Requesting a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the infraction in accordance with applicable law; or

(4) Submitting a written statement either contesting the infraction or explaining mitigating circumstances, if this alternative is authorized by local court rule. The statement shall contain the person's promise to pay the monetary penalty authorized by law if the infraction is found to be committed. For contested hearings Tthe statement shall be executed in compliance with RCW 9A.72.085, in substantially the following form:

I hereby state as follows: certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true:

I promise that if it is determined that I committed the infraction for which I was cited, I will pay the monetary penalty authorized by law and assessed by the court.

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.


[Date and Place] [Signature]
(I understand that if this form is submitted by e-mail, my typed name on the signature line will qualify as my signature for purposes of the above certification.)

For mitigation hearings, the statement shall be executed in substantially the following form:

I hereby state as follows:

I promise to pay the monetary penalty authorized by law or, at the discretion of the court, any reduced penalty that may be set.

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.


(Date and Place) (Signature)
(I understand that if this form is submitted by e-mail, my typed name on the signature line will qualify as my signature for purposes of the above certification.)

(c) Method of Response. A person may respond to a notice of infraction either personally, or if allowed by local rule by mail or by e-mail. If the response is mailed or e-mailed, it must be mailed postmarked or e-mailed not later than midnight of the day the response is due.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 2.6 SCHEDULING OF HEARINGS



Purpose: The suggested change to IRLJ 2.6(a)(1) and (e) would provide additional clarity to the rules for setting contested hearings. While the IRLJ has its own "speedy trial rule" in IRLJ 2.6(a)(1), the rule does not currently contain any excluded periods. Rather than adding a large new section dealing with excluded periods, new subsection (e) stating that the time for hearing rule, Rule 2.6(a)(1), is not violated if the failure to hold the hearing was attributable to the defendant or the defendant's counsel should be sufficient.

The suggested change to IRLJ 2.6(a)(2) gives the court an additional seven days, from 14 to 21 days, to notify defendants of the time, place and date of a contested hearing. The current 14-day requirement is too short, in light of the increased workload on the courts. Increasing the notification period to 21 days will not cause any harm to defendants. In conjunction with the increased notification period for courts is the suggested change set forth in new subsection (a)(4) imposing new consequences on courts that fail to meet the 21-day deadline.

The purpose of the suggested change to IRLJ 2.6(a)(4) is to establish a remedy for the failure of the court to set a contested hearing within 21 days of the court's receipt of the request by the defendant. Current subsection 2.6(e) provides a remedy when the defendant is not brought to hearing within the time required by the rules (dismissal with prejudice). However, the rules do not provide a remedy for the failure of the court to set the hearing in a timely manner. Any requirement in the IRLJ should include a reasonable remedy or include a reasonable consequence for failure to comply with its provisions. This suggested change would allow the court to dismiss the infraction upon a showing of prejudice if the court does not send written notice of hearing within 21 days of the receipt of the request for a hearing.

The purpose of suggested new subsection (g) is to clarify the rule regarding requests for a change of judge in infraction cases. The Civil Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (CRLJ) include a rule for change of judge at CRLJ 40(f). That rule applies to infraction cases pursuant to CRLJ 1 and 81(a). Adding new section (g) to this rule will greatly assist courts and parties in quickly determining the law without the necessity for a search of three court rules.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 2.6 SCHEDULING OF HEARINGS



(a) Contested Hearings.

(1) Except as provided in sections (1)(i) and (ii), upon receipt of a response submitted pursuant to rule 2.4(b)(2), the court shall schedule a hearing to determine whether the

defendant committed the infraction. The hearing shall be scheduled for not less than 14 days from the date the written notice of hearing is sent by the court, nor more than 120 days from the date of the notice of infraction or the date a default judgment is set aside, unless otherwise agreed by the defendant in writing.

(i) If authorized by local court rule, a defendant who requests a contested hearing may first be scheduled for a prehearing conference, which shall be scheduled for not less than 14 days from the date the written notice of the hearing is sent by the court nor more than 45 days from the date of the notice of infraction or the date a default judgment is set aside, unless otherwise agreed to by the defendant in writing.

(ii) The prehearing conference may be waived by the defendant in writing if the waiver is received by the court before the time set for the prehearing conference. If the prehearing conference is waived, the case will be set for contested hearing. The contested hearing shall be scheduled for not more than 90 days from the date of the prehearing conference or, if the prehearing conference is waived, from the date the waiver of the prehearing conference is received by the court.

(2) The court shall send the defendant written notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing within 14 21 days of the request for a hearing. The notice shall also include statements advising the defendant of the defendant's rights at the hearing and stating that failure to appear may be a crime for which the defendant may be arrested, and, in a traffic infraction case, the defendant's privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be suspended.

(3) The court may schedule the hearing on a contested infraction for the same time as the hearing on another infraction alleged to have been committed by the defendant. The court may schedule the hearing on a contested infraction for the same time as the trial on a misdemeanor arising out of the same occurrence as the infraction.

(4) The infraction may be dismissed upon a showing of prejudice if the court does not send a defendant written notice of a hearing within 21 days of receipt of the request for a hearing.

(b) Mitigation Hearings.

(1) Upon receipt of a response submitted pursuant to rule 2.4(b)(3) the court shall schedule a hearing to determine whether there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the infraction. The hearing shall be scheduled for not less than 14 days from the date the written notice of hearing is sent by the court, nor more than 120 days from the date of the notice of infraction or the date a default judgment is set aside, unless otherwise agreed by the defendant in writing.

(2) The court shall send the defendant written notice of the time, place, and date of the hearing within 14 21 days of the request for a hearing. The notice shall also include statements advising the defendant of the defendant's rights at the hearing and stating that failure to appear may be a crime for which the defendant may be arrested, and, in a traffic infraction case, the defendant's privilege to operate a motor vehicle may be suspended.

(3) The court may schedule the mitigation hearing for the same time as the mitigation hearing on another infraction alleged to have been committed by the defendant.

(c) Decisions on Written Statements. If the court has adopted a local rule authorizing decisions on written statements submitted by mail, and/or e-mail, it shall, upon receipt of a statement pursuant to rule 2.4(b)(4), consider the case in accordance with rule 3.5. The requirements of GR 30.5 are not applicable to e-mail statements submitted pursuant to rule 2.4(b)(4). The court is not required to notify the parties of a date for the examination of the statements.

(d) Objection to Hearing Date. A defendant who objects to the hearing date set by the court upon the ground that it is not within the time limits prescribed by this rule shall file with the court and serve upon the prosecuting authority a written motion for a speedy hearing date within 10 days after the notice of hearing is mailed or otherwise given to the defendant. Failure of a party, for any reason, to make such a motion shall be a waiver of the objection that a hearing commenced on such a date is not within the time limits prescribed by this rule. The written notice of the hearing date shall contain a copy of IRLJ 2.6(d).

(e) Time for Hearing; Effect of Delay or Continuances. A motion for dismissal for the failure to hold a hearing within the time period provided by this rule shall not be granted if the failure to hold the hearing was attributable to the defendant or the defendant's counsel.

(f) Dismissal With Prejudice. An infraction not brought to hearing within the time period provided by this rule shall, upon motion, be dismissed with prejudice.

(g) Change of Judge. The provisions of CRLJ 40(f) apply.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Changes


IRLJ 3.1 CONTESTED HEARINGS - PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS



( Purpose: The purpose of the suggested change to Rule 3.1(a), requiring that a request for an officer's presence at a contested hearing be filed on a separate pleading, is to ensure that this request is not overlooked by the court. Requests for the presence of the citing officer are often buried in lengthy notices of appearance. This suggested change ensures that the court has notice that the officer is needed, allowing the court to reschedule the hearing for that officer's set court date. Many courts set hearings for a date on which that officer is already scheduled to appear in court. Courts work with all stakeholders in the justice system to ensure that scarce resources are used appropriately. Scheduling hearings on specific days for specific officers contributes to that goal. The requirement for a separate pleading ensures that the request for an officer is taken into account by the court at the earliest possible opportunity.

The suggested changes to Rule 3.1(b) will clarify and simplify the discovery process for infraction cases. Requiring the filing of discovery requests on a separate pleading will ensure that all parties are aware of the request in a timely manner. At present, requests for discovery are often buried in lengthy notices of appearance.

Many individuals do not understand the necessity to serve requests for discovery upon the prosecuting authority and to file the notice with the court. The suggested changes to Rule 3.1(b) clarify this issue.

The suggested changes to Rule 3.1(b) also simplify a party's request for a list of witnesses. The rationale for a witness list is satisfied when each party provides the opposing party with the names of persons having knowledge of the alleged infraction. Nothing is gained by the requirement that a party produce a list of witnesses expected to be called. Neither party is required to call a witness simply because they are set forth on a witness list.

The suggested changes to Rule 3.1(b) provide a specific remedy for failure to provide discovery, and failure to provide discovery in a timely manner. Discovery should always be provided in a timely manner, yet the failure to do so in civil cases will rarely result in suppression of the evidence sought unless the violation was willful, as stated in this proposed rule change. All other discovery violations will generally result in a continuance of the case, and perhaps the imposition of terms, to allow the opposing party the opportunity to examine the missing evidence and prepare accordingly.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 3.1 CONTESTED HEARINGS -- PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS



(a) Subpoena. The defendant and the plaintiff may subpoena witnesses necessary for the presentation of their respective cases. Witnesses should be served at least 7 days before the hearing. The subpoena may be issued by a judge, court commissioner, or clerk of the court or by a party's lawyer. If a party's lawyer issues a subpoena, a copy shall be filed with the court and with the office of the prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the infraction is filed on the same day it is sent out for service. A request that an officer appear at a contested hearing pursuant to rule 3.3(c) shall be filed on a separate pleading. A subpoena may be directed for service within their jurisdiction to the sheriff of any county or any peace officer of any municipality in the state in which the witness may be or it may be served as provided in CR 45(c), or it may be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, sent to the witnesses' last known address. Service by mail shall be deemed complete upon the third day following the day upon which the subpoena was placed in the mail. If the subpoena is for a witness outside the county, a judge must approve of the subpoena.

(b) Discovery. Upon written demand of the defendant at least 14 days before a contested hearing, filed with the court and served on the office of the prosecuting authority assigned to the court in which the infraction is filed, the plaintiff's lawyer shall at least 7 days before the hearing provide the defendant or the defendant's lawyer with a list of the witnesses the plaintiff intends to call at the hearing and a copy of the citing officer's sworn statement if it will be offered into evidence at the hearing and with the names of any witnesses not identified in the citing officer's sworn statement a list of the witnesses the defendant intends to call at the hearing. If the prosecuting authority provides the citing officer's sworn statement less than 7 days before the hearing but not later than one day before the hearing, the citing officer's sworn statement shall be suppressed only upon a showing of prejudice in the presentation of the defendant's case. If the prosecuting authority, without reasonable excuse or justification, fails to provide the citing officer's sworn statement, the statement shall be suppressed. No other discovery shall be required. Neither party is precluded from investigating the case, and neither party shall impede another party's investigation. A request for discovery pursuant to this section shall be filed on a separate pleading.

(c) Amendment of Notice. The court may permit a notice of infraction to be amended at any time before judgment if no additional or different infraction is charged, and if substantial rights of the defendant are not thereby prejudiced. A continuance shall be granted if the defendant satisfies the court that the additional time is needed to defend against the amended notice of infraction.

(d) Sufficiency. No notice of infraction shall be deemed insufficient for failure to contain a definite statement of the essential facts constituting the specific infraction which the defendant is alleged to have committed, nor by reason of defects or imperfections which do not tend to prejudice substantial rights of the defendant.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Change


IRLJ 3.3 PROCEDURE AT CONTESTED HEARING



Purpose: To replace the term "community service" with the term "community restitution" in the Infraction Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In 2002, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 6627, which replaced the term "community service" with "community restitution" in statutes relating to the sentencing of adults and juveniles on felony, misdemeanor and infraction offenses. (Chapter 175, Laws 2002.) The DMCJA recommends that the language in the infraction rules be consistent with the statutory terminology, for ease of understanding and practice. The DMCJA suggests using the same definition for "community restitution" for IRLJ 1.2(m) that the legislature used in Senate Bill 6627. See, for example, RCW 9.94A.030 (8).


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 3.3 PROCEDURE AT CONTESTED HEARING



(a) - (d) [Unchanged.]

(e) Disposition. If the court determines that the infraction has been committed, it may assess a monetary penalty against the defendant. The monetary penalty assessed may not exceed the monetary penalty provided for the infraction by law. The court may waive or suspend a portion of the monetary penalty, or provide for time payments, or in lieu of monetary payment provide for the performance of community service restitution as provided by law. The court has continuing jurisdiction and authority to supervise disposition for not more than 1 year.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Change


IRLJ 3.4 HEARING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES



Purpose: To replace the term "community service" with the term "community restitution" in the Infraction Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In 2002, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 6627, which replaced the term "community service" with "community restitution" in statutes relating to the sentencing of adults and juveniles on felony, misdemeanor and infraction offenses. (Chapter 175, Laws 2002.) The DMCJA recommends that the language in the infraction rules be consistent with the statutory terminology, for ease of understanding and practice. The DMCJA suggests using the same definition for "community restitution" for IRLJ 1.2(m) that the legislature used in Senate Bill 6627. See, for example, RCW 9.94A.030 (8).


(


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 3.4 HEARING ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES



(a) - (b) [Unchanged.]

(c) Disposition. The court shall determine whether the defendant's explanation of the events justifies reduction of the monetary penalty. The court shall enter an order finding the defendant committed the infraction and may assess a monetary penalty. The court may not impose a penalty in excess of the monetary penalty provided for the infraction by law. The court may waive or suspend a portion of the monetary penalty, or provide for time payments, or in lieu of monetary payment provide for the performance of community service restitution as provided by law. The court has continuing jurisdiction and authority to supervise disposition for not more than 1 year.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Change


IRLJ 3.5 DECISION ON WRITTEN STATEMENTS



( Purpose: Rule 3.5 outlines the method by which courts hear contested infraction cases based upon written statements but does not outline a procedure by which courts may consider facts in mitigation based upon written statements. Rule 2.4(b)(4) authorizes defendants to submit written statements contesting infractions or explaining facts in mitigation, if permitted by local rule. Rule 2.6(c) requires that courts consider such written statements in accordance with Rule 3.5. The current version Rule 3.5 only addresses contested infraction cases and not mitigation hearings. The suggested change will add a procedure by which the courts may consider written statements submitted for purposes of mitigation.


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 3.5 DECISION ON WRITTEN STATEMENTS [LOCAL OPTION]



(a) Generally Contested Hearings. The court shall examine the citing officer's report and any statement submitted by the defendant. The examination shall take place within 120 days after the defendant filed the response to the notice of infraction. The examination may be held in chambers and shall not be governed by the Rules of Evidence.

(b)(1) Factual Determination. The court shall determine whether the plaintiff has proved by a preponderance of all evidence submitted that the defendant has committed the infraction.

(c)(2) Disposition.- If the court determines that the infraction has been committed, it may assess a penalty in accordance with rule 3.3.

(d)(3) Notice to Parties. The court shall notify the parties in writing whether an infraction was found to have been committed and what penalty, if any, was imposed.

(e)(4) No Appeal Permitted. There shall be no appeal from a decision on written statements.

(b) Mitigation Hearings. Mitigation hearings based upon written statements may be held in chambers.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Change


IRLJ 4.2 FAILURE TO PAY OR COMPLETE COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR TRAFFIC INFRACTION



( Purpose: To replace the term "community service" with the term "community restitution" in the Infraction Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In 2002, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 6627, which replaced the term "community service" with "community restitution" in statutes relating to the sentencing of adults and juveniles on felony, misdemeanor and infraction offenses. (Chapter 175, Laws 2002.) The DMCJA recommends that the language in the infraction rules be consistent with the statutory terminology, for ease of understanding and practice. The DMCJA suggests using the same definition for "community restitution" for IRLJ 1.2(m) that the legislature used in Senate Bill 6627. See, for example, RCW 9.94A.030 (8).


(


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 4.2 FAILURE TO PAY OR COMPLETE COMMUNITY SERVICE RESTITUTION FOR TRAFFIC INFRACTION



(a) Failure to Pay or Complete Community Service Restitution. Unless the traffic infraction is a parking, standing, stopping, or pedestrian infraction, the court shall notify the Department within 10 days:

(1) If the defendant fails to pay the monetary penalty assessed after a hearing to contest the traffic infraction or a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances, or after a decision on written statements, if authorized by local court rule, or

(2) If the defendant fails to meet a time payment authorized by the court or fails to complete community service restitution approved by the court.

(b) Notice to Department. The notice to the Department shall be in the form prescribed by the Department.

(c) Removal of the Failure to Pay or Complete Community Service Restitution. When the defendant has paid all monetary penalties owing, including completion of community service restitution, the court shall notify the Department within 10 days of payment or of completion of community service restitution on a form prescribed by the Department.


GR 9 Cover Sheet

Suggested Change


IRLJ 6.7 FAILURE TO PAY OR COMPLETE COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR TRAFFIC INFRACTION



( Purpose: To replace the term "community service" with the term "community restitution" in the Infraction Rules for the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. In 2002, the legislature enacted Senate Bill 6627, which replaced the term "community service" with "community restitution" in statutes relating to the sentencing of adults and juveniles on felony, misdemeanor and infraction offenses. (Chapter 175, Laws 2002.) The DMCJA recommends that the language in the infraction rules be consistent with the statutory terminology, for ease of understanding and practice. The DMCJA suggests using the same definition for "community restitution" for IRLJ 1.2(m) that the legislature used in Senate Bill 6627. See, for example, RCW 9.94A.030 (8).


(


INFRACTION RULES FOR COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION (IRLJ)


RULE 6.7 RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT



A motion to waive or suspend a fine, or to convert a penalty to community service restitution, or to vacate a judgment is governed by CRLJ 60(b).

Reviser's note: The typographical errors in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.

Reviser's note: The brackets and enclosed material in the text of the above section occurred in the copy filed by the agency and appear in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.

Washington State Code Reviser's Office