RULES OF COURT
| IN THE MATTER OF THE
ADOPTION OF THE
AMENDMENTS TO GR
30 -- ELECTRONIC FILING;
MAR -- 3.2 -- AUTHORITY OF
ARBITRATOR; MAR 6.2 -- FILING OF
AWARD; MAR 6.3 -- JUDGMENT ON
AWARD; MAR 6.4 |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
ORDER NO. 25700-A-979 |
Now, therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED:
(a) That the amendments as shown below are adopted.
(b) That the amendments will be published in the Washington Reports and will become effective September 1, 2011.
DATED at Olympia, Washington this 10th day of June, 2011.
| Madsen, C.J. |
|
| C. Johnson, J. |
J. M. Johnson, J. |
| Alexander, J. |
Fairhurst, J. |
| Owens, J. |
Stephens, J. |
| Chambers, J. |
Wiggins, J. |
(a) Definitions
(1) "Digital signature" is defined in RCW 19.34.020.
(2) "Electronic Filing" is the electronic transmission of information to a court or clerk for case processing.
(3) "Electronic Document" is an electronic version of information traditionally filed in paper form, except for documents filed by facsimile which are addressed in GR 17. An electronic document has the same legal effect as a paper document.
(4) "Electronic Filing Technical Standards" are those standards, not inconsistent with this rule, adopted by the Judicial Information System committee to implement electronic filing.
(5) "Filer" is the person whose user ID and password are used to file an electronic document.
Comment: The form of "digital signature" that is acceptable is not limited to the procedure defined by chapter 19.34 RCW, but may include other equivalently reliable forms of authentication as adopted by local court rule or general.
(b) Electronic filing authorization, exception, service, and technology equipment.
(1) The clerk may accept for filing an electronic document that complies with the Court Rules and the Electronic Filing Technical Standards.
(2) A document that is required by law to be filed in non-electronic media may not be electronically filed. Comment Certain documents are required by law to be filed in non-electronic media. Examples are original wills, certified records of proceedings for purposes of appeal, negotiable instruments, and documents of foreign governments under official seal.
(3) Electronic Transmission from the Court. The clerk may electronically transmit notices, orders, or other documents to a party who has filed electronically, or has agreed to accept electronic documents from the court, and has provided the clerk the address of the party's electronic mailbox. It is the responsibility of the filing or agreeing party to maintain an electronic mailbox sufficient to receive electronic transmissions of notices, orders, and other documents.
(4) Electronic Service by Parties. Parties may electronically serve documents on other parties of record only by agreement.
(5) A court may adopt a local rule that mandates electronic filing by attorneys provided that the attorneys are not additionally required to file paper copies except for those documents set forth in (b)(2). The local rule shall not be inconsistent with this Rule and the Electronic Filing Technical Standards, and the local rule shall permit paper filing upon a showing of good cause. Electronic filing should not serve as a barrier to access.
Comment: When adopting electronic filing requirements, courts should refrain from requiring counsel to provide duplicate paper pleadings as "working copies" for judicial officers.
(c) Time of Filing, Confirmation, and Rejection.
(1) An electronic document is filed when it is received by the clerk's designated computer during the clerk's business hours; otherwise the document is considered filed at the beginning of the next business day.
(2) The clerk shall issue confirmation to the filing party that an electronic document has been received.
(3) The clerk may reject a document that fails to comply with applicable electronic filing requirements. The clerk must notify the filing party of the rejection and the reason therefore.
(d) Authentication of Electronic Documents.
(1) Procedures
(A) A person filing an electronic document must have
applied for and received a user ID and password from a
government agency or a person delegated by such agency in
order to use the applicable electronic filing service
provider.
Comment: The committee encourages local clerks and courts to develop a protocol for uniform statewide single user ID's and passwords.
(B) All electronic documents must be filed by using the user ID and password of the filer.
(C) A filer is responsible for all documents filed with his or her user ID and password. No one shall use the filer's user ID and password without the authorization of the filer.
(2) Signatures
(A) Attorney Signatures - An electronic document which requires an attorney's signature may be signed with a digital signature or signed in the following manner:
s/John Attorney
State Bar Number 12345
ABC Law Firm
123 South Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 123-4567
Fax: (206) 123-4567
E-mail: John.Attorney@lawfirm.com
(B) Non-attorney signatures - An electronic document
which requires a non-attorney's signature and is not signed
under penalty of perjury may be signed with a digital
signature or signed in the following manner:
s/John Citizen
123 South Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 123-4567
Fax: (206) 123-4567
E-mail: John.Citizen@email.com
(C) Non-attorney signatures on documents signed under
penalty of perjury - Except as set forth in (d)(2)(D) of this
rule, if the original document requires the signature of a
non-attorney signed under penalty of perjury, the filer must
either:
(i) Scan and electronically file the entire document, including the signature page with the signature, and maintain the original signed paper document for the duration of the case, including any period of appeal, plus sixty (60) days thereafter; or
(ii) Ensure the electronic document has the digital signature of the signer.
(D) Law enforcement officer signatures on documents
signed under penalty of perjury. Arresting or citing officer
signatures on citations, and notices of infraction filed
electronically in courts of limited jurisdiction -
(i) A citation or notice of infraction initiated by an arresting or citing officer as defined in IRLJ 1.2(j) and in accordance with CrRLJ 2.1 or IRLJ 2.1 and 2.2 is presumed to have been signed when the arresting or citing officer uses his or her user id and password to electronically file the citation or notice of infraction.
(ii) Any document initiated by a law enforcement officer is presumed to have been signed when the officer uses his or her user ID and password to electronically submit the document to a court or prosecutor through the Statewide Electronic Collision & Traffic Online Records application, the Justice Information Network Data Exchange, or a local secured system that the presiding judge designates by local rule. Unless otherwise specified, the signature shall be presumed to have been made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and on the date and at the place set forth in the citation.
(E) Multiple signatures - If the original document requires multiple signatures, the filer shall scan and electronically file the entire document, including the signature page with the signatures, unless:
(i) The electronic document contains the digital signatures of all signers; or
(ii) For a document that is not signed under penalty of perjury, the signator has the express authority to sign for an attorney or party and represents having that authority in the document.
If any of the non-digital signatures are of non-attorneys, the filer shall maintain the original signed paper document for the duration of the case, including any period of appeal, plus sixty (60) days thereafter.
(F) Court Facilitated Electronically Captured Signatures - An electronic document that requires a signature may be signed using electronic signature pad equipment that has been authorized and facilitated by the court. This document may be electronically filed as long as the electronic document contains the electronic captured signature. (3) An electronic document filed in accordance with this rule shall bind the signer and function as the signer's signature for any purpose, including CR 11. An electronic document shall be deemed the equivalent of an original signed document if the filer has complied with this rule. All electronic documents signed under penalty of perjury must conform to the oath language requirements set forth in RCW 9A.72.085 and GR 13.
(e) Filing fees, electronic filing fees.
(1) The clerk is not required to accept electronic documents that require a fee. If the clerk does accept electronic documents that require a fee, the local courts must develop procedures for fee collection that comply with the payment and reconciliation standards established by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the Washington State Auditor.
(2) Anyone entitled to waiver of non-electronic filing fees will not be charged electronic filing fees. The court or clerk shall establish an application and waiver process consistent with the application and waiver process used with respect to non-electronic filing and filing fees.
Reviser's note: The typographical error in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appears in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (MAR)
Rule 3.2 - Authority of Arbitrator
(a) Authority of Arbitrator. An arbitrator has the authority to:
(1) Decide procedural issues arising before or during the arbitration hearing, except issues relating to the qualifications of an arbitrator;
(2) Invite, with reasonable notice, the parties to submit trial briefs;
(3) Examine any site or object relevant to the case;
(4) Issue a subpoena under rule 4.3;
(5) Administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses;
(6) Rule on the admissibility of evidence under rule 5.3;
(7) Determine the facts, decide the law, and make an award;
(8) Award costs and attorney fees as authorized by law; and
(9) Perform other acts as authorized by these rules or local rules adopted and filed under rule 8.2.
(b) Authority of the Court. The court shall decide:
(1) Motions for involuntary dismissal, motions to change
or add parties to the case, and motions for summary judgment
shall be decided by the court and not by the arbitrator; and
(2) Issues relating to costs and attorney fees if those issues cannot otherwise be decided by the arbitrator.
MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (MAR)
Rule 6.2 - Filing of Award
MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (MAR)
Rule 6.3 - Judgment on Award
MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (MAR)
Rule 6.4 - Witness Costs and Attorney Fees and Costs
(b) Response. Any response to the request for costs and attorney fees shall be filed with the arbitrator and served upon all other parties within seven days after service of the request.
(c) Hearing. The arbitrator has discretion to hold a hearing on the request for costs and attorney fees.
(d) Decision. Within 14 days after the service of the
request for costs and attorney fees, the arbitrator shall file
an amended award granting the request in whole or in part, or
a denial of costs and attorney fees, with the clerk of the
superior court, with proof of service upon each party. If the
arbitrator fails to timely file and serve the amended award or
denial and proof of service, a party may, after notice to the
arbitrator, file a motion with the court for an order
directing the arbitrator to do so by a date certain. Late
filing shall not invalidate the decision. Witness fees and
other costs provided for by statute or court rule in superior
court proceedings shall be payable upon entry of judgment in
the same manner as if the hearing were held in court.
MANDATORY ARBITRATION RULES (MAR)
Rule 7.1 - Request for Trial De Novo
(b) Form. The request for a trial de novo shall not
refer to the amount of the award, including any award of costs
or attorney fees, and shall be in substantially in the form
set forth below:
[Form unchanged.]
(c) Proof of Service. The party filing and serving the request for a trial de novo shall file proof of service with the court. Failure to file proof of service within the 20-day period shall not void the request for a trial de novo.
(bd) Calendar. When a trial de novo is requested as
provided in section (a), the case shall be transferred from
the arbitration calendar in accordance with rule 8.2 in a
manner established by local rule.
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.
RULE 1.10. IMPUTATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE
(b) - (d) [Unchanged.]
(e) When the prohibition on representation under
paragraph (a) is based on Rule 1.9 (a) or (b), and arises out
of the disqualified lawyer's association with a prior firm, a
lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no other lawyer in the
firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which
that lawyer is disqualified under Rule 1.9 unless:
(1) the personally disqualified lawyer is screened by effective means from participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom;
(2) the former client of the personally disqualified lawyer receives notice of the conflict and the screening mechanism used to prohibit dissemination of information relating to the former representation;
(3) the firm is able to demonstrate by convincing evidence that no material information relating to the former representation was transmitted by the personally disqualified lawyer before implementation of the screening mechanism and notice to the former client.
Any presumption that information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) has been or will be transmitted may be rebutted if the personally disqualified lawyer serves on his or her former law firm and former client an affidavit attesting that the personally disqualified lawyer will not participate in the matter and will not discuss the matter or the representation with any other lawyer or employee of his or her current law firm, and attesting that during the period of the lawyer's personal disqualification those lawyers or employees who do participate in the matter will be apprised that the personally disqualified lawyer is screened from participating in or discussing the matter. Such affidavit shall describe the procedures being used effectively to screen the personally disqualified lawyer. Upon request of the former client, such affidavit shall be updated periodically to show actual compliance with the screening procedures. The law firm, the personally disqualified lawyer, or the former client may seek judicial review in a court of general jurisdiction of the screening mechanism used, or may seek court supervision to ensure that implementation of the screening procedures has occurred and that effective actual compliance has been achieved.
[1] - [8] [Unchanged.]
[9] The screening provisions in Washington RPC 1.10
differ from those in the Model Rule. Washington's adoption of
a nonconsensual screening provision in 1993 preceded the ABA's
2009 adoption of a similar approach in the Model Rules.
Washington's rule was amended and the screening provision
recodified as paragraph (e) in 2006, and paragraphs (a) and
(e) were further amended in 20__ to conform more closely to
the Model Rules version. None of the amendments to this Rule,
however, represents a change in Washington law. The Rule
preserves Washington practice established in 1993 with respect
to screening by allowing a lawyer personally disqualified from
representing a client based on the lawyer's prior association
with a firm to be screened from a representation to be
undertaken by other members of the lawyer's new firm under the
circumstances set forth in paragraph (e). Former Washington
RPC 1.10 differed significantly from the Model Rule. This
difference was attributable in part to a 1989 amendment to
Model Rule 1.10 that recodified conflicts based on a lawyer's
former association with a firm into Model Rule 1.9, and in
part to Washington's adoption of a screening rule in 1993.
Washington's Rule has been restructured to make it and Rule
1.9 more consistent with the Model Rules. The conflicts that
arise based on a lawyer's former association with a firm are
now addressed in Rules 1.9 (a) and (b), while Rule 1.10
addresses solely imputation of that conflict. Under Rule
1.9(a), such a lawyer need not have actually acquired
information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9 to be disqualified
personally, but because acquisition of confidential
information is presumed in Washington, see, e.g., Teja v.
Saran, 68 Wn. App. 793, 846 P.2d 1375 (1993), review denied,
122 Wn.2d 1008, 859 P.2d 604 (1993); Kurbitz v. Kurbitz, 77
Wn.2d 943, 468 P.2d 673 (1970), the recodification does not
represent a change in Washington law. The Rule preserves
prior Washington practice with respect to screening by
allowing a personally disqualified lawyer to be screened from
a representation to be undertaken by other members of the firm
under the circumstances set forth in paragraph (e). See
Washington Comment [10].
[10] Washington's RPC 1.10 was amended in 1993 to permit
representation with screening under certain circumstances.
Model Rule 1.10 does not contain a screening mechanism. Rule
1.10(e) retains the screening mechanism adopted as Washington
RPC 1.10(b) in 1993, thus allowing a firm to represent a
client with whom a lawyer in the firm has a conflict based on
his or her association with a prior firm if the lawyer is
effectively screened from participation in the representation,
is apportioned no part of the fee earned from the
representation and the client of the former firm receives
notice of the conflict and the screening mechanism. However,
prior to undertaking the representation, non-disqualified firm
members must evaluate the firm's ability to provide competent
representation even if the disqualified member can be screened
in accordance with this Rule. While Rule 1.10 does not
specify the screening mechanism to be used, the law firm must
be able to demonstrate that it is adequate to prevent the
personally disqualified lawyer from receiving or transmitting
any confidential information or from participating in the
representation in any way. The screening mechanism must be in
place over the life of the representation at issue and is
subject to judicial review at the request of any of the
affected clients, law firms, or lawyers. However, a lawyer or
law firm may rebut the presumption that information relating
to the representation has been transmitted by serving an
affidavit describing the screening mechanism and affirming
that the requirements of the Rule have been met.
[11] Under Rule 5.3, this Rule also applies to nonlawyer assistants and lawyers who previously worked as nonlawyers at a law firm. See Daines v. Alcatel, 194 F.R.D. 678 (E.D. Wash. 2000); Richards v. Jain, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (W.D. Wash. 2001).
[12] - [13] [Unchanged.]
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.
Reviser's note: The typographical error in the above material occurred in the copy filed by the State Supreme Court and appears in the Register pursuant to the requirements of RCW 34.08.040.
RULE 1.2. SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION AND ALLOCATION OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN LAWYER AND CLIENT
(e) [Reserved.]
(f) A lawyer shall not purport to act as a lawyer for any person or organization if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the lawyer is acting without the authority of that person or organization, unless the lawyer is authorized or required to so act by law or a court order.
Additional Washington Comments (14-17)
Agreements Limiting Scope of Representation
[14] [Unchanged.]
Acting as a Lawyer Without Authority
[15] Paragraph (f) was taken from former Washington RPC 1.2(f), which was deleted from the RPC by amendment effective September 1, 2006. The mental state has been changed from "willfully" to one of knowledge or constructive knowledge. See Rule 1.0 (f) & (j). Although the language and structure of paragraph (f) differ from the former version in a number of other respects, paragraph (f) does not otherwise represent a change in Washington law interpreting former RPC 1.2(f).
[16] If a lawyer is unsure of the extent of his or her authority to represent a person because of that person's diminished capacity, paragraph (f) of this Rule does not prohibit the lawyer from taking action in accordance with Rule 1.14 to protect the person's interests. Protective action taken in conformity with Rule 1.14 does not constitute a violation of this Rule.
[17] Paragraph (f) does not prohibit a lawyer from taking any action permitted or required by these Rules, court rules, or other law when withdrawing from a representation, when terminated by a client, or when ordered to continue representation by a tribunal. See Rule 1.16(c).
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.
RULE 1.15A. SAFEGUARDING PROPERTY
(h) A lawyer must comply with the following for all trust accounts:
(1) - (6) [Unchanged.]
(7) A lawyer must not disburse funds from a trust account
until deposits have cleared the banking process and been
collected, unless the lawyer and the bank have a written
agreement by which the lawyer personally guarantees all
disbursements from deposits to the account without recourse to
the trust account.
(8) - (9) [Unchanged.]
(i) [Unchanged.]
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.
RULE 1.6. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
[3] The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality is
given effect by related bodies of law: the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine and the rule of
confidentiality established in professional ethics. The
attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in
judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called
as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence
concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer
confidentiality applies in situations other than those where
evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law.
The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to
matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to
all information relating to the representation, whatever its
source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as
authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law. See also Scope.
[4] - [26] [Unchanged]
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.
RULE 1.8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: CURRENT CLIENT: SPECIFIC RULES
(g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients; shall
not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the
claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an
aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas,
unless each client gives informed consent, confirmed in
writing. The lawyer's disclosure shall include the existence
and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and the
participation of each person in the settlement.
(h) - (m) [Unchanged.]
[27] An indigent defense contract by which the
contracting lawyer or law firm assumes the obligation to pay
conflict counsel from the proceeds of the contract, without
further payment from the governmental entity, creates an acute
financial disincentive for the lawyer either to investigate or
declare the existence of actual or potential conflicts of
interest requiring the employment of conflict counsel. For
this reason, such contracts involve an inherent conflict
between the interests of the client and the personal interests
of the lawyer. These dangers warrant a prohibition on making
such an agreement or accepting compensation for the delivery
of indigent defense services from a lawyer that has done so.
See WSBA Informal Ethics Opinion No. 1647 (conflict of
interest issues under RPC 1.7 and 1.9 exist in requiring
public defender office to recognize a conflict and hire
outside counsel out of its budget); ABA Standards for Criminal
Justice, Std. 5-3.3(b)(vii) (3d ed. 1992) (elements of a
contract for defense services should include "a policy for
conflict of interest cases and the provision of funds outside
of the contract to compensate conflict counsel for fees and
expenses"); People v. Barboza, 29 Cal.3d 375, 173 Cal. Rptr.
458, 627 P.2d 188 (Cal. 1981) (structuring public defense
contract so that more money is available for operation of
office if fewer outside attorneys are engaged creates
"inherent and irreconcilable conflicts of interest").
[28] - [29] [Unchanged.]
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.
RULE 3.4. FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL
[1] - [4] [Unchanged.]
[5] Washington did not adopt Model Rule 3.4(f), which
delineates circumstances in which a lawyer may request that a
person other than a client refrain from voluntarily giving
information to another party, because the Model Rule is
inconsistent with Washington law. See Wright v. Group Health
Hospital, 103 Wn.2d 192, 691 P.2d 564 (1994 1984). Advising
or requesting that a person other than a client refrain from
voluntarily giving information to another party may violate
other Rules. See, e.g., Rule 8.4(d).
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.
RULE 5.5. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW; MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE OF LAW
[1] - [6] [Unchanged.]
[7] Paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to lawyers who are
admitted to practice law in any United States jurisdiction,
which includes the District of Columbia and any state,
territory or commonwealth of the United States. The word
"admitted" in paragraph (c) contemplates that the lawyer is
authorized to practice in the jurisdiction in which the lawyer
is admitted and excludes a lawyer who while technically
admitted is not authorized to practice, because, for example,
the lawyer is on inactive status.
[8] - [22] [Unchanged.]
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.
[(a) - (d) No changes.]
(e) Certified Report of Department of Licensing Custodian
(1) Generally. A certified report from a Department of Licensing (DOL) custodian of records pertaining to a defendant's driving record(s) and a defendant's driving status on a particular date is admissible at any hearing or trial in lieu of testimony of a DOL custodian of records. The certified report shall have the same effect as if the records custodian had testified, if the report is in substantial compliance with the following certification:
I have been appointed by the Director of the Department of Licensing as a legal custodian of driving records of the State of Washington. I certify under penalty of perjury that such records are official and are maintained in the office of the Department of Licensing, Olympia, Washington.
All information contained in this report pertains to the driving record of:
| Lic. # | Birthdate: | |
| Name: | Eyes: ____ Sex ___ | |
| Hgt: ___ Wgt:_____ | ||
| License Issued:___________ | ||
| License Expires:___________ | ||
The attached document(s) are a true and accurate copy of the document(s) maintained in the office of the Department of Licensing, Olympia, Washington.
(specify all documents attached to this affidavit)
Dated: ______________________
_______________________________
(name)
Custodian of Records
Place: Olympia, Washington
Date: _______________
(2) Exclusion of Test Reports: The court shall exclude the Certificate of Department of Licensing Custodian otherwise admissible under this section if:
(i) a copy of the certificate has not been served or mailed to the defendant's lawyer, if represented, at least 14 days prior to the trial or hearing 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 certificate has not been served or mailed to the defendant at least 14 days prior to the trial or hearing date or, upon a showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper;
(iii) at least 7 days prior to the trial or hearing date, or, upon a showing of cause, such lesser time as the court deems proper, the defendant has served or mailed a written demand upon the prosecuting authority to produce a custodian of records from the Department of Licensing for trial or hearing.
(f) 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 technician's 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, or (5) evidence
concerning the certified report of the Department of
Licensing. 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.
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.