Can a married couple be charged with a traffic infraction?

Question

In the state of Washington USA, my daughter and son-in-law were joint recipients of a red light camera ticket. The law clearly states that the "operator of the motor vehicle" is responsible for the fine, so it would seem to me that the burden of establishing who that operator was is on the state. (they are both registered owners of the vehicle in question)

What is the legal basis for the state charging two people with an infraction and leaving it up to the accused to determine who is at fault?

ADDENDUM:

There are some good and thoughtful answers here, and I appreciate the effort. However, most center on describing the camera ticket process or explaining response options, which isn’t what I was asking.

I was asking how two people can be both accused, (actually found guilty in absentia…) of an infraction for which it is physically impossible for both of them to have committed because there can be only one operator. Like the classic story of murder on a snowbound train; one of the passengers must have done it, but you can’t simply declare them all guilty! (Yes, I understand the traffic infraction isn’t a crime, but still it must follow a legal, and logical process to determine fault.)

Perhaps this is more a philosophical debate without a single correct answer, but several comments have led me to consider the following: If instead of the camera a police officer had pulled the car over after observing that it failed to come to a complete stop before turning right, a citation would be issued that I believe would need to comply with RCW 46.64.015. The name and driver’s license number of the operator would be recorded, and as a moving violation I believe that points would be assigned to that person’s driving record.

If during the course of this same traffic stop the passenger asked that the officer instead issue the citation to them to keep the driver from accumulating more points I don’t believe that would be allowed. If either the passenger or driver asked the officer to accept the fine directly on their behalf to avoid a ticket resulting in points, I believe that would be considered bribery. If the officer winked and suggested that they pay him/her directly to avoid points, that would also be illegal.

If we agree with and accept as truth the points in the paragraph above, how is a redlight camera ticket that promises no points in exchange for cash functionally, ethically, or morally any different?

Answer 1

Note: I am not familiar with Washington law, but I can make an educated guess as to what is happening here.

I am guessing that the couple in question are the joint registered owners of the motor vehicle. In many jurisdictions, motor vehicles are treated differently from "normal" things, they are treated as inherently dangerous and thus ownership carries a certain set of responsibilities. (Similar to e.g. owning a firearm, which carries with it certain restrictions on how it can be stored, for example.)

One of those responsibilities is to keep track of who is operating the motor vehicle.

Therefore, unless the operator of the motor vehicle can clearly be identified without incurring unreasonable cost, tickets for traffic violations are generally addressed to the registered owner, who can then forward them to the responsible operator. (Note that "unreasonable cost" does not have to be monetary. It could also be an invasion of privacy: it is less invasive to just ask the owner to identify the operator than to e.g. surveil the owner's property to find out who is using the vehicle or run facial recognition against the owner's family, friends, and colleagues.)

In many jurisdictions, there is a form attached to the ticket (or downloadable from some website) which will look something like this:

• I accept the ticket: [ ]
• I do not accept the ticket [ ] because …
  • I was operating the vehicle, but I did not run the red light [ ]
  • I was not operating the vehicle [ ]
    • … the vehicle was operated by: name ___, address ___
    • … I do not know who was operating the vehicle at that time [ ]

If you claim not to know who was operating the vehicle at the time in question, that might have other consequences. In some jurisdictions, you can then be ordered to keep a logbook, for example. If the vehicle then gets caught again and you again claim to now know who was operating it, or you cannot produce the logbook, you might get fined for violating the court order to keep a logbook.

Answer 2

Washington State resident here, although it may even depend on the city that issued the ticket. They probably just sent the ticket to you both since you're the registered owners of the car (as others have said). In Seattle, if you look up options for contesting a ticket, you'll see one of your options is:

SUBMIT A DECLARATION OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY: If your vehicle was stolen, sold by you prior to the date of the violation, or was otherwise not in your care, custody or control at the time of the violation, you may submit a sworn statement to that effect to the Court to rebut the presumption, established in SMC 11.31.090, that you were driving the vehicle at the time of the violation.

The form for that simply requires you both to affirm that the vehicle was "in the care, custody or control of a person who is not a registered owner of the vehicle."

You can find similar forms for other cities by googling "declaration of non-responsibilty [city name]"

Some other cities' versions of this form may have a spot for you to list who was driving at the time, but you aren't required to fill that in.

The municipal code referenced in that quote above provides the legal basis for the presumption that the car was being driven by a registered owner, and describes how that presumption may be overcome:

E. In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was in violation of Section 11.50.140 or, Section 11.50.150 , or Section 11.52.100, together with proof that the person named in the notice of traffic infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred. This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner. (Laws of 2005, chapter 167, section 1 and RCW 46.63.075)

Answer 3

Nobody is "charged" with running a red light in Washington. Instead, pursuant to RCW 46.63.170, red light cameras can be used to assign infractions. One of the restrictions on the use of cameras is that

(d) Automated traffic safety cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and vehicle license plate and only while an infraction is occurring. The picture must not reveal the face of the driver or of passengers in the vehicle.

which means that the traffic cam cannot record who the driver is. It is also required that

(e) A notice of infraction must be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within fourteen days of the violation, or to the renter of a vehicle within fourteen days of establishing the renter's name and address under subsection (3)(a) of this section.

And finally,

(f) The registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for an infraction under RCW 46.63.030(1)(d) unless the registered owner overcomes the presumption in RCW 46.63.075, or, in the case of a rental car business, satisfies the conditions under subsection (3) of this section.

Thus they must

state[], under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner

The law does not require the owner to rat out the actual driver, in case they know.

Answer 4

australia

There is an obligation on the registered owner to know who was in control of their motor vehicle. Photo infringements are sent to the registered owner (who may be an individual, more than one individual, or a company) who has two choices:

1. Nominate the person in control of the vehicle at the relevant time who will receive their own infringement notice. That person may or may not have been driving: if they weren't they have the opportunity to nominate the driver.
2. Pay the fine, which for a corporate owner is 5 times the fine for the offence.

There is a very limited exemption if it was unreasonable for the owner to know who was in control, for example, if the vehicle was stolen or if it was being used in an unusual way such as a shuttle and had many drivers on a single day - this would not be an excuse if that was the normal way the vehicle was operated; the owner should have implemented procedures to monitor who was driving.

Answer 5

I am a Seattle resident, writing from personal experience, on vacation, with no paperwork available to cite.

No one is charged with a crime by the state of WA when a camera catches a car running a red light.

Because the state of WA cannot prove who was driving the car, the state sends you, in effect, a parking ticket. It says so, very clearly.

It is not a moving violation, it does not go on your driving record or get sent to insurance companies. (Note: not literally a parking ticket, just the same legal category.) Just as a parking ticket does not require a particular person to have been driving the car, a 'car seen in intersection against the light' does not either.

If you choose to contest this, you move it from being treated as a parking ticket to being treated as a moving violation. If you win a challenge you pay nothing, if you lose, you pay more, and you now have a moving violation.