State Sen. Joe McDermott (D-34) adamantly denies that his fellow Sen. Adam Kline (D-37) plans to hold up his proposal to let cities increase penalties for killing or maiming people while committing a traffic infraction, which will have to go through Kline’s committee. However, McDermott said, Kline “has expressed concerns” about the legislation. The two senators met with Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr, the leading proponent of the legislation, along with other supporters and opponents last week.

Kline and Carr haven’t yet returned calls; however, one opponent of the bill who was at last week’s meeting, defense attorney Bob Goldberg, explained his objections to me this afternoon. Goldberg says state law requires that traffic laws be uniform across the state. Goldberg, who successfully fought Seattle’s attempt to make its own DUI laws more stringent than the state’s back in 1995, says that the reason cities can’t pass traffic laws tougher than state law is because “you’ve got too many boundaries [between jurisdictions] where it’s incredibly complicated,” like N. 145th St. between Seattle and Shoreline, or I-5, where state patrol officers have a choice to take offenders to court in the city or the county. “When it comes to a traffic crime, where the state’s potentially proposing to take someone’s liberty away, you get this huge patchwork of different ordinances” under which a person could be prosecuted, Goldberg says. Although Goldberg acknowledges cities have different laws governing all sorts of things—leash laws, for example, or laws restricting fireworks—he says traffic laws are different because cars are “uniquely mobile. The nature of cars is to be moving from place to place.”

Goldberg’s argument raises some interesting questions. Lawyers (and lawyer wannabes), what do you think?

7 replies on “Defense Attorney Raises Objections to Assault-by-Vehicle Bill”

  1. FWIW, I just recently learned that running a red light is not a crime, it’s an infraction. For something to be a crime, you have to be at risk of being imprisoned. I can see the point here about not mixing together two different kinds of violations of the law.

  3. @2 I agree. I don’t see the point of getting a law *allowing* stricter laws being enacted at the state level. If the laws on this are not strict enough, and there is enough agreement in Olympia to get a law addressing this problem passed, why not make the state penalties tougher?

    The law is already convoluted enough.

  4. Good. The new law is a dumb idea.

    If the point is to make the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists, then any law that further promotes the illusion that it is safe to cross the street will have opposite its intended effect. Cars are fucking dangerous, and pedestrians can be difficult to see and need to be vigilant at all times when crossing. Period.

    Even the safest driver will encounter circumstances where they do not see a pedestrian who is legally crossing the street. Sorry, the threat of jail time for the driver will not change this fact.

    Laws already exist for punishing people who injure or kill while driving recklessly.

  5. #4, The driver who killed a pedestrian (city council aide) while talking on his cell phone was charged with a misdemeanor and was sentenced to community service. This happened two years after the same driver drove on the wrong side of the road and hit a bicyclist, and got only a traffic ticket. “Reckless driving” doesn’t cover not paying attention and is only a slap on the wrist, anyway. We need something between a slap on the wrist and vehicular homicide.

  6. The assault-by-infraction law troubles me because it criminalizes behavior that doesn’t have to be proven reckless or negligent (even though it may be). The focus isn’t on the driver’s behavior or driving, but rather whether they hit someone. As a prosecutor, I find it problematic. That said…

    @5-this law allows someone to be charged with Assault 4, which is a gross misdemeanor, just like Reckless Driving. And in the case that you’re talking about, the driver was charged under Seattle’s verison of the Assault 4 by vehicle law. The only difference is that you don’t have to *prove* recklessness. And Reckless Driving results in a 30 day license suspension, whereas there’s no license suspension with the Assault 4.

    @2 & 3-I suspect the reason the bill isn’t state-wide is because McDermott think it ups the chances of it actually going somewhere.

    The problem with Goldberg’s argument is that assault isn’t a traffic law. The law doesn’t create another crime like DUI or Reckless Driving; rather, it just establishes another means of committing assault. I know that seems like splitting hairs, but it is a distinction. And while I would expect him to oppose the bill no matter what, the argument does lead to the inevitable conclusion: if the cities can’t choose to enact the law, the state may consider making it state-wide.

    Last I heard, Seattle’s law was still under appeal.

Comments are closed.