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

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.090 (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 hearing held for the purpose of contesting the determination that an infraction has been committed shall be without a jury.
(2) The court may consider the notice of traffic infraction and any other written report made under oath submitted by the officer who issued the notice or whose written statement was the basis for the issuance of the notice in lieu of the officer's personal appearance at the hearing. The person named in the notice may subpoena witnesses, including the officer, and has the right to present evidence and examine witnesses present in court.
(3) The burden of proof is upon the state to establish the commission of the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence.
(4) After consideration of the evidence and argument the court shall determine whether the infraction was committed. Where it has not been established that the infraction was committed an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the court's records. Where it has been established that the infraction was committed an appropriate order shall be entered in the court's records. A record of the court's determination and order shall be furnished to the department in accordance with RCW 46.20.270 as now or hereafter amended.
(5) An appeal from the court's determination or order shall be to the superior court. The decision of the superior court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[ 1980 c 128 s 3; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 11.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—1980 c 128: See notes following RCW 46.63.060.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: State v. Farr-Lenzini, 970 P.2d 313 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Farr-Lenzini, 970 P.2d 313 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “A person cited for an infraction can respond in a number of ways, such as by paying a penalty or requesting a contested hearing.”
City of Bellevue v. Hellenthal, 144 Wash. 2d 425 (Wash. 2001). “See also RCW 46.63.090. These rules are designed to facilitate an expeditious system for disposing of traffic infractions.”
City of Bellevue v. Hellenthal, 28 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2001). “See also RCW 46.63.090. *750 These rules are designed to facilitate an expeditious system for disposing of traffic infractions.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 46.63.090(5). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals order modifying the Commissioner's ruling and hold that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review civil traffic cases in which the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 46.63.090(5). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals order modifying the Commissioner’s ruling and hold that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review civil traffic cases in which the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
City of Bellevue v. Lightfoot, 877 P.2d 247 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “At the contested hearing, the trial court considered a written statement by Officer Rasko pursuant to the limited hearsay exception of RCW 46.63.090. Officer Rasko’s statement indicated that he visually observed Lightfoot exceeding the posted limit of 35 m.”
State v. Smith, 941 P.2d 725 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “” 30 Because the State failed to demonstrate the pilot’s personal knowledge, it did not satisfy the speed trap admissibility statute, and the district court erred in admitting the pilot’s statement that the ASTMs were one-half mile apart.”
Chris Williams v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 46.63.090, a challenge to a notice of an infraction “shall be without a jury,” and a subsequent “appeal from the court’s determination or order shall be to the superior court.”
State v. Kravchuk, 936 P.2d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “190 need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, RCW 46.63.090(3), it is not a "violation” for disposition purposes under the JJA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.090(1) — 1 case
State v. Farr-Lenzini, 970 P.2d 313 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “A person cited for an infraction can respond in a number of ways, such as by paying a penalty or requesting a contested hearing.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.090(2) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 941 P.2d 725 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “” 30 Because the State failed to demonstrate the pilot’s personal knowledge, it did not satisfy the speed trap admissibility statute, and the district court erred in admitting the pilot’s statement that the ASTMs were one-half mile apart.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.090(3) — 2 cases
State v. Farr-Lenzini, 970 P.2d 313 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “A person cited for an infraction can respond in a number of ways, such as by paying a penalty or requesting a contested hearing.”
State v. Kravchuk, 936 P.2d 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “190 need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, RCW 46.63.090(3), it is not a "violation” for disposition purposes under the JJA.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.63.090(5) — 3 cases
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 46.63.090(5). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals order modifying the Commissioner's ruling and hold that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review civil traffic cases in which the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 46.63.090(5). We therefore reverse the Court of Appeals order modifying the Commissioner’s ruling and hold that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review civil traffic cases in which the original amount in controversy is less than $200.”
Chris Williams v. City of Spokane (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “Under RCW 46.63.090, a challenge to a notice of an infraction “shall be without a jury,” and a subsequent “appeal from the court’s determination or order shall be to the superior court.”
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.