• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Unmarked patrol cars in Wa State

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?

Again you either don't understand how law works.

You are straying from the main point.

Government is restricted with limited authority, it doesn't get to do what ever it wants........I know this isn't the current state of things, I know statist like it that way.

The burden of proof in this type of legal system would be you to cite were the cops are allowed to do something.
 

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
I believe that in WA you have the right to conduct an "investigation" under the discovery rules [normal discovery is limited].

If you get a ticket, I would start an "investigation" and when denied access to people and places and things then file a motion for default/dismiss for failing to follow the discovery rules of the court.


I've never lost a traffic (speeding) ticket case...they are not easy to win just because they usually take multiple trips to the courthouse...its a stacked deck for sure.

I'm familiar with WA, IL, and CT traffic stuff...anyone who got a ticket can pm me BEFORE they plead...many of the best defenses are had prior to pleading not guilty.
Simply getting out of a speeding ticket was never the goal here.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.

RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.

RCW 46.61.025
Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles.


Every person riding an animal or driving any animal-drawn vehicle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter except those provisions of this chapter which by their very nature can have no application.

How is this applicable to this discussion?
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Honestly, I think police should be able to drive without any markings......as should I. In a common sense world, no knock raids would all but disappear and sneaking up on bad guys would be the norm. While unmarked, it should be SOP for the person being pulled over to call the police, or not pull over until in a very public area or a police station.

The point is that the state's men don't have to worry about mala prohibita, which is fine. What's unacceptable is coming after me for mala prohibita. Until such time that clear mala prohibita are no longer "crimes" the hypocrisy should not be overlooked. For example, Wa state no longer accepts my permission slip to carry concealed. Why? Because Fl's permits are now good for 7 years, which is too long for Washington law. The officer in the video would gladly arrest me for carrying, he may even brag to his "brothers" (fellow state employees) that he took a "gun off the street". I'm glad this citizen gave him a hard time. Too bad there are so few of him to go around.
 
Last edited:

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
It could have hurt to use another defense. The state didn't meet the required time lines for notifying me of the hearing date, the officer lied in his sworn statement(this was acknowledged by the commissioner at the hearing), the state denied me of proper discovery...all of these could have been cause to dismiss the case entirely. The whole point of doing this is to force the state into a position where they have to comply with state law. Im still waiting on permission from the author to post it, but I have a very in depth legal brief that covers the entire subject of marking police vehicles in detail. When he gives the go-ahead, I'll post it.

ETA: I'm not trying thread-jacker, my apologies to 77zach . I'll start a new one when I get permission to post the legal brief.
 
Last edited:

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
The court brief I promised:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/30onoy9ecordwuv/UnmarkedCarCourtBrief2014.pdf

Also, some quotes from the Washington State Patrol Regulations Manual:

Page 438-439:
SECTION 11: MARKING AND EQUIPMENT
17.11.010 PATROL VEHICLE MARKING AND EQUIPMENT (CALEA 41.3.1,
41.3.2, 43.1.5, 61.1.6, 70.4.1)
3. Troopers
a. Vehicles issued to traffic officers shall be white.
b. The vehicle shall be marked on the front doors with a black and
white Washington State Patrol shield and dark blue lightning
bolt. Decals with the words "State Patrol" shall be affixed to
both front doors.
c. License plates shall include the officer's personnel number.
d. The vehicle shall be equipped with a roof-mounted light bar,
blue spot light, roll bar, jail partition, push bars, siren, radio,
and standard trunk equipment.

Page 442:
SECTION 13: CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE PLATES
17.13.010 CONFIDENTIAL LICENSE PLATES (CALEA 43.1.5, 61.1.6)
I. POLICY
A. Use of Confidential License Plates
1. Confidential license plates shall only be utilized on vehicles within
the department for confidential, investigative, or undercover work;
or when necessary for the personal security of any officer or public
employee.
 

Mainsail

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
1,533
Location
Silverdale, Washington, USA
Better then unicorns.
Better than, not then.

Wa state no longer accepts my permission slip to carry concealed. Why? Because Fl's permits are now good for 7 years, which is too long for Washington law.
I understand the reason WA and FL no longer play nice with regard to CPLs is because FL now allows under 21 to get a permit if they're active duty. WA law forbids it, so they had to break reciprocity. The only way to get back together is for WA to change its law- so not likely.
 

Hemry

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
7
Location
Washington
The WSP claims that these unmarked vehicles are exempted because they are traffic "control" vehicles, not because they are undercover. Reading RCW 46.08.066, they are still required to have official plates on traffic "control" vehicles. Most of the unmarked cars have confidential plates, at least one is being driven with no plates at all

OK, I read the RCW again and it looks like they're potentially right. I initially thought that the exemption only applied to the requirements in section (2). Unfortunately on a re-read I found this at the end of (1):

The appropriate governing body may provide by rule or ordinance for marking of passenger motor vehicles as prescribed in subsection (2) of this section or for exceptions to the marking requirements for local governmental agencies for the same purposes and under the same circumstances as permitted for state agencies under subsection (3) of this section.​

Why does the language have to be written in such a confusing way? Wish the law had more bulleted lists of things and fewer long sentences.

Hem
 
Last edited:

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
Who is the appropriate governing body and where is the rule or ordinace that exempts them from marking vehicles in accordance with state law?

Someone tried to argue that the WSP made the exemption, but thier regulations manuals proves that the WSP is in fact violating thier own polices.
 

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,239
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10...a-traffic-stop-you-dont-want-to-miss-2-153509

A Washington motorist fulfilled what is probably the fantasy of millions of Americans when he pulled over a police officer for suspicious activity.
Gavin SeimSelf-described activist Gavin Seim flagged down the officer, identified only as Grant County Deputy Canfield, for driving an unmarked vehicle without the identification logos required by state law, The Blaze reported.


I rec'd this in my mail just this morn.
 

J1MB0B

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
239
Location
Tacoma, Washington
Wow, all the time spent researching this issue and I've never seen that WAC! We already know that the WSP has never formally requested exceptions to the marking requirements, at least we haven't found any yet.
I have several public records requests pending and should be getting a huge amount of paperwork to look over here soon.
Thank you for finding that.


From the statute:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.08.065



The * note:



Now, the WAC contains the general rules that the department of enterprise services has adopted:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=200-500-040



So, Chief of WSP requests an exception to the marking requirements for cars used more than 50% of the time for law enforcement, the director of general administration approves the exception as a matter of routine, and the unmarked cars are legal to operate.

Now the question becomes, does the vehicle in question have an exception that was submitted by the chief of the WSP and approved by the director of general administration?
 
Top