Due Process / Notice Defects — State v. Knapstad-Style Pre-Hearing Motion
If the citation lacks the elements required by Washington Const. art. I § 3 and 22 (due process notice), or the state cannot produce admissible evidence of one or more elements, the registered owner may bring a Knapstad-style motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency. Successfully used where the state cannot produce the chalk-mark observation, the meter calibration, or the photograph supporting the citation. Hearing examiners in Seattle Municipal Court routinely entertain these even outside the criminal context as 'motions to dismiss' for inadequate evidence.
Legal basis
WA Const. art. I §§ 3, 22; State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (1986); RCW 46.63.090
Sample appeal wording
[COURT] MOTION TO DISMISS — INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE / DUE PROCESS Notice [#] The registered owner moves to dismiss this infraction on the ground that the state's evidence, taken as true, fails to establish each element by a preponderance, citing State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (1986), and Washington Const. art. I §§ 3, 22. 1. The state has produced no [photo / officer notes / meter calibration] showing [the offense element]. 2. Without that record the court cannot find a violation by a preponderance. Dismiss with prejudice. [NAME] / [DATE]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- State v. Knapstad, 107 Wn.2d 346 (1986)
- WA Const. art. I