Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.63
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A notice of traffic infraction represents a determination that an infraction has been committed. The determination will be final unless contested as provided in this chapter.
(2) The form for the notice of traffic infraction shall be prescribed by rule of the supreme court and shall include the following:
(a) A statement that the notice represents a determination that a traffic infraction has been committed by the person named in the notice and that the determination shall be final unless contested as provided in this chapter;
(b) A statement that a traffic infraction is a noncriminal offense for which imprisonment may not be imposed as a sanction; that the penalty for a traffic infraction related to standing, stopping, or parking may include nonrenewal of the vehicle registration;
(c) A statement of the specific traffic infraction for which the notice was issued;
(d) A statement of the monetary penalty established for the traffic infraction;
(e)(i) A statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these options;
(ii) One of the options must allow a person to admit responsibility for the infraction and attest that the person does not have the current ability to pay the infraction in full. The person must receive information on how to submit evidence of inability to pay, obtain a payment plan pursuant to RCW 46.63.190, and be informed that failure to pay or enter into a payment plan may result in collection action, including garnishment of wages or other assets;
(f) A statement that at any hearing to contest the determination the state has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the infraction was committed; and that the person may subpoena witnesses including the officer who issued the notice of infraction;
(g) A statement that at any hearing requested for the purpose of explaining mitigating circumstances surrounding the commission of the infraction the person will be deemed to have committed the infraction and may not subpoena witnesses; and
(h) A statement that the person must respond to the notice as provided in this chapter within 30 days or the person's driver's license or driving privilege may be suspended by the department until any penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter have been satisfied; and
(i) A statement that failure to appear at a hearing requested for the purpose of contesting the determination or for the purpose of explaining mitigating circumstances may result in the suspension of the person's driver's license or driving privilege, or in the case of a standing, stopping, or parking violation, refusal of the department to renew the vehicle registration, until any penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter have been satisfied.
[ 2021 c 240 s 1; 2013 c 170 s 1; 2011 c 233 s 1; 2006 c 270 s 2; 1993 c 501 s 9; 1984 c 224 s 2; 1982 1st ex.s. c 14 s 2; 1980 c 128 s 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 8.]

Notes:

Effective date—2021 c 240: "This act takes effect January 1, 2023." [ 2021 c 240 s 16.]
Severability—Effective date—1984 c 224: See notes following RCW 46.16A.120.
Effective date—1982 1st ex.s. c 14: "This act shall take effect on July 1, 1984, and shall apply to violations of traffic laws committed on or after July 1, 1984." [ 1982 1st ex.s. c 14 s 7.]
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 14: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1982 1st ex.s. c 14 s 6.]
Effective date—1980 c 128: "Sections 1 through 8 and 10 through 16 of this act shall take effect on January 1, 1981, and shall apply to violations of the traffic laws committed on or after January 1, 1981. Section 9 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately." [ 1980 c 128 s 18.]
Severability—1980 c 128: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1980 c 128 s 17.]
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “” RCW 46.63.060(1). The notice must conform to the form prescribed by this court and must include “[a] statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these options .”
Williams v. City of Spokane, 505 P.3d 91 (Wash. 2022). · cites it 4× “” RCW 46.63.060(1); IRLJ 1.2(b), 2.2(a). “If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.”
Brooks v. City of Seattle, 599 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2010). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060 . The Notice should be distinguished from a Citation to Appear, which is a separate document that includes the violation allegedly committed, but requires a signature promising to appear in court.”
City of Pasco v. MacE, 653 P.2d 618 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 46.63.060(2)(b). If it is thought that our conclusions here today will unduly burden the courts of limited jurisdiction, that situation can undoubtedly be ameliorated by legislative "decriminalization" of those offenses which are in fact regulatory, rather than criminal in…”
City of Kennewick v. Fountain, 802 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1991). “*194 Just as different elements satisfy this requirement, so too do different burdens of proof. In Fountain's case, the requisite burden as to accomplice liability for a civil infraction under RCW 46.”
State v. Klump, 813 P.2d 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Klump's failure to appear once is a misdemeanor, RCW 46.63.060 and RCW 46.64.020. A criminal prosecution *914 is started in district court by complaint, CrRLJ 2.”
Orwick v. City of Seattle, 682 P.2d 954 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that (1) the procedures used by the City of Seattle to adjudicate and process traffic infractions failed to comply with RCW 46.63.060; and (2) the Seattle Police Department's practice of issuing traffic infraction notices based on readings…”
State v. Magee, 180 P.3d 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.63.060(2)(f); [6] Farr-Lenzini, 93 Wash.”
State v. Magee, 143 Wash. App. 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.63.060(2)(f ); 6 Farr-Lenzini, 93 Wn.”
City of Port Orchard v. Tilton, 889 P.2d 953 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Former RCW 46.63.060 (Laws of 1984, ch. 224, § 2); RCW 46.”
City of Wenatchee v. Durham, 718 P.2d 819 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “3 See RCW 46.63.060(2) (b); State v. Hehman, 90 Wn.”
State v. Johnson (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “" RCW 46.63.060(1 ). The notice must conform to the form prescribed by this court and must include "[a] statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these .”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(1) — 2 cases
Williams v. City of Spokane, 505 P.3d 91 (Wash. 2022). “” RCW 46.63.060(1); IRLJ 1.2(b), 2.2(a). “If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.”
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 46.63.060(1). The notice must conform to the form prescribed by this court and must include “[a] statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these options .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(2) — 5 cases
City of Kennewick v. Fountain, 802 P.2d 1371 (Wash. 1991). “*194 Just as different elements satisfy this requirement, so too do different burdens of proof. In Fountain's case, the requisite burden as to accomplice liability for a civil infraction under RCW 46.”
State v. Magee, 143 Wash. App. 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 46.63.060(2)(f ); 6 Farr-Lenzini, 93 Wn.”
City of Port Orchard v. Tilton, 889 P.2d 953 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Former RCW 46.63.060 (Laws of 1984, ch. 224, § 2); RCW 46.”
City of Wenatchee v. Durham, 718 P.2d 819 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “3 See RCW 46.63.060(2) (b); State v. Hehman, 90 Wn.”
Jeri Mainer v. City Of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(2)(b) — 1 case
City of Pasco v. MacE, 653 P.2d 618 (Wash. 1983). “RCW 46.63.060(2)(b). If it is thought that our conclusions here today will unduly burden the courts of limited jurisdiction, that situation can undoubtedly be ameliorated by legislative "decriminalization" of those offenses which are in fact regulatory, rather than criminal in…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(2)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 315 P.3d 1090 (Wash. 2014). “” RCW 46.63.060(1). The notice must conform to the form prescribed by this court and must include “[a] statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these options .”
State v. Johnson (Wash. 2014). “" RCW 46.63.060(1 ). The notice must conform to the form prescribed by this court and must include "[a] statement of the options provided in this chapter for responding to the notice and the procedures necessary to exercise these .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(2)(f) — 2 cases
State v. Magee, 180 P.3d 824 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 46.63.060(2)(f); [6] Farr-Lenzini, 93 Wash.”
State v. Magee, 143 Wash. App. 698 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 46.63.060(2)(f ); 6 Farr-Lenzini, 93 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.060(2)(k) — 1 case
State v. Klump, 813 P.2d 131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Klump's failure to appear once is a misdemeanor, RCW 46.63.060 and RCW 46.64.020. A criminal prosecution *914 is started in district court by complaint, CrRLJ 2.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.