State v. Knight, Seat Belt Web Page

State v. Knight, King County District Court, South Division, No. I3697882 and King County Superior Court, No. 03-2-39382-7 SEA Web Page

I responded to the Notice of Seat Belt Infraction issued by the Washington State Patrol with my Motion to Dismiss Complaint.

However, Judge Robert McBeth of the King County District Court, denied this Motion and found me guilty of a seat belt infraction. He reduced the fine of $101 to $50 because of my clean driving record. Thank you, Your Honor.

Therefore I appealed and filed in King County Superior Court my Brief of Appellant

The State responded, not by filing its brief, instead, it filed a State's Motion for Order Continuing Oral Argument and Staying All Proceedings Pending Decision by Supreme Court (Adobe Acrobat pdf file) and cited State v. Eckblad, Supreme Court of Washington No. 74109-3. In this Motion, Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Deanna Jennings Fuller, WSBA 7914 writes:

"It is the intention of the State to request this stay in all future constitutional challenges to the seatbelt law in King County RALJ appeals until the Supreme Court decides Eckblad. It is a waste of resources to do otherwise."

This is great news! I asked that the State be enjoined from enforcing the seat belt statute, RCW 46.61.688, pending the outcome of Eckblad in my Appellant's Response to State's Motion for Order Continuing Oral Argument and Staying All Proceedings Pending Decision by Supreme Court. If it is a waste of resources to defend this statute against constitutional challenges prior to Eckblad, then it is a waste of resources for police to cite motorists and their passengers for seat belt violations. This continuance should not depend on the defendant being aware of this situation, it should be automatic and done at the court of limited jurisdiction level. A defendant should not have to file a RALJ appeal to King County Superior Court to enjoy the benefit of this continuance. Such would deny such defendants the equal protection of the laws without serving any legitimate state interest.

Hearing on this Motion to Continue was held Friday, April 9, 2004 before Judge Pro Tem Kenneth Mark Comstock. I will ignore the possible Article IV Section 7 violation for the time being. Judge Pro Tem Comstock found that I lacked standing to ask for an injunction prohibiting the Washington State Patrol and the State from enforcing RCW 46.61.688 pending decision in Eckblad. So we settled for my case being continued pending Eckblad.

It is with special permission granted by Mr. Trevor Eckblad through his attorney Eric Michael Weight that we can present the Brief of Respondent Eckblad filed in State v. Eckblad, Supreme Court of Washington No. 74109-3.

Thank you, Mr. Eckblad and Mr. Weight.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Washington found, 7-2 with a dissent written by Justice Richard Saunders, that RCW 46.61.688 is not void for vagueness, even though it is "hardly a model of clarity". We will be finding out from Mr. Weight if a petition to the United States Supreme Court is in their future.

If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.