Lake Forest Park Municipal Court grants multiple deferred findings, suppressions and continuances in Aug. 4 infraction calendar

The Lake Forest Park Municipal Court resolved a series of traffic-infraction matters during its Aug. 4, 2025, remote infraction calendar, issuing multiple deferred findings, granting several defense motions to suppress and dismiss for discovery violations, and setting continuances in other cases.

Presiding Judge granted deferred findings in multiple cases — typically a six-month probation period with no moving-traffic infractions and a $175 administrative fee — and repeatedly granted defense motions to suppress and dismiss where the city did not provide required discovery. "Motion to suppress and dismiss is granted," the Presiding Judge said on several rulings. Lisa Donaldson, defense attorney, summarized one defense request by noting, "these are both nonmoving violations that the defendant corrected, within days of the infraction, and we would move the court for a deferred finding, a nonmoving deferred."

Why it matters: The calendar resolved a high volume of routine enforcement cases and highlighted recurring discovery compliance issues between the city and defense counsel. Several defendants avoided adjudication through deferred findings; in other matters, the court dismissed charges where discovery was not provided. The rulings affect individual drivers and reflect how discovery practices shape outcomes in photo- and camera-generated infractions.

The court actions, by case: - Case 580188550 (Mazd Matahan): Defense asked for a deferred finding; the Presiding Judge granted a nonmoving deferred finding to start that day with a six-month probation period and a $175 administrative fee. - Javea Hitesh (case number reported on calendar): Defense moved to suppress for failure to provide discovery; the court found a discovery violation and granted the motion to suppress and dismissed the charge. - Case 580434879 (Devinder Singh): Defense requested a continuance to receive mailed discovery; the court continued the matter to Aug. 18 at 1:30 p.m. - Cases 250159038 and 250161398 (James Taylor): Newly retained counsel Craig Cahoon asked for continuances to file timely motions; both matters were set for the Oct. 6 attorney calendar at 1:30 p.m., with a waiver of the 120-day speedy-hearing requirement. - Case 250141374 (Siva San Sankara): Defense 3.1(b) motion to suppress/dismiss for lack of discovery was granted. - Case 250143990 (Jared Haddock): Motion to suppress and dismiss granted. - Case 250142505 (Eric Cox): Motion to suppress and dismiss granted. - Case 580332288 (Joe Stark): Defense requested and the court granted a six-month deferred finding, with no moving-traffic infractions and a $175 administrative fee. - Case 250199745 (listed under attorney Ken Sepprin / Goldenshti): Defense 3.1 motion granted for lack of discovery. - Case 580225922 (Mohammed Shalabi): Defense requested a continuance; matter set for the Oct. 6 calendar at 1:30 p.m., with a waiver of speedy hearing. The record reflected a discussion about whether the defendant was eligible for a deferred finding. - Case 235A0332275 (Flamenco matter): Defendant eligible for deferred finding; the court granted a six-month deferred finding with a $175 administrative fee and no moving-traffic infractions. - Case 5A0533229 (Sean Hathaway): The affidavit filed with the matter was for a different case number; the city agreed to dismiss the charge and the court granted dismissal. - Case 580482090 (Yucatanafar): Defense counsel Dan Sammis asked for a continuance after receiving discovery late; the court continued the matter to Sept. 22 and accepted a waiver of speedy hearing. On related photo-ticket matters handled that day, the court granted defense 3.1(b) motions to suppress and dismiss (cases identified as Gao and 250138610) after the defense said discovery had not been provided in a timely way. - Case 580506397 (Sela/Seala): Defense requested a six-month deferred finding; the court granted the deferred finding, with the usual conditions and a $175 administrative fee. - Case (Koolini, docket number cited as 58580460925): Not eligible for deferred finding because of a CDL; the defense moved to dismiss for lack of discovery. The city produced a docket entry showing discovery mailed July 24 to a PO Box; the court found the city had provided discovery and did not grant dismissal but directed that another copy be sent to defense counsel. - Case described as Friozzi (filing dates discussed): Defense made a preliminary motion under IRLJ 2.2(d); the court granted the preliminary motion to dismiss for the stated rule violation. - Jacob Voor: The defendant previously requested a continuance to hire an attorney but did not appear; the court found a failure to appear, entered a default finding that the violation was committed, and ordered penalties.

Several other matters on the calendar were continued by agreement, handled as eligible deferred findings, or resolved by the court upon counsel's representations. The court repeatedly instructed clerks to send the signed orders to counsel or to the defendants as requested.

Context and procedure notes: Counsel repeatedly raised lack-of-discovery arguments under local procedures (defense counsel cited a timely discovery request and the city often produced physical copies mailed to a PO Box). Defense counsel sometimes asked the court to accept waivers of speedy hearing deadlines or to set matters on a future attorney calendar when counsel had recent retention. The Presiding Judge referenced local calendar procedures and the jurisdiction's deferred-finding practice several times: "Deferred finding in LFP is a 6 month, probation period, no moving traffic violations, and a $175 admin fee," the court said.

What to watch next: Several matters were set on the Oct. 6 and Sept. 22 attorney calendars for further proceedings. Cases continued for lack of receipt of discovery may return to the calendar for renewed 3.1(b) motions, or they may proceed with deferred findings if counsel and clients agree.

Ending: The calendar closed after the court resolved the listed matters; clerks were directed to issue orders reflecting each ruling and to send them to counsel or defendants as requested.