Judge reduces fines, explains photo-enforcement rules in Lake Forest Park infraction calendar

Judge Jennifer Grant reduced or amended penalties for a series of photo-enforced infractions during a remote Lake Forest Park Municipal Court infraction calendar on July 16, 2025. Hearings were held by Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube.

Several drivers appearing for mitigation received reductions from the standard notice amounts. Grant reduced a red-light photo infraction for Jim Obland from $145 to $90 after reviewing video of the intersection and hearing that Obland backed out of the intersection when a vehicle pulled up behind him. Rosalyn Cooper’s citation for driving 32 mph in a 25 mph photo‑enforced zone on May 4 was reduced to $75; the judge said the city treats such infractions as nonmoving, not reported to the Department of Licensing. James Fisher and Paul (Boncroy) each had first-offense school-zone photo violations reduced to $75. Timoth y Buzzelley, described as a repeat offender, received a reduction to $90 for a third photo-enforced school-zone infraction. Randy Wong’s two red-light photo notices were reduced to $90 each. Judge Grant reduced Carolyn Randolph’s higher-speed school-zone notice from $290 to $200 after reviewing the evidence and hearing she was traveling in an unfamiliar area. Ray Lee, who told the court he supports a household of four, had his first photo infraction reduced to $50.

Why it matters: The judge used the mitigation hearings to apply discretion provided by local practice and to explain how Lake Forest Park’s photo enforcement operates. Grant emphasized that the city uses “school walk zone” camera enforcement to monitor posted limits continuously; when the school-beacon lights are flashing the enforceable speed is 20 mph statewide for active school zones, but the posted non‑active limit (25 mph in these locations) is also enforced by cameras at other times.

The reductions followed a consistent pattern: first offenses were typically reduced to $75; repeat or multiple infractions were often reduced to $90; higher over-limit citations drew larger but still reduced penalties. In several cases the judge advised drivers that the infraction notices are mailed and provided information about payment options, including that mailing a check avoids a card fee. Grant also reminded drivers that photo-enforced infractions handled as mitigations are not reported to the state Department of Licensing and do not appear on driving records.

Among procedural clarifications, Grant told several people that mitigation means the person acknowledges the violation but asks the court to consider a reduced penalty; contested hearings are a different process and proceed under a preponderance-of-evidence standard. In one mitigation, the judge offered a deferred finding option (described in a separate hearing) as an alternative resolution when authorized by statute and local rules.

Court logistics: the clerk checked in participants by name at the start of the Zoom calendar and the judge handled mitigation cases in the first (1:30 p.m.) block, then moved to contested hearings at 2:30 p.m. The court repeatedly instructed participants to mute until their cases and confirmed mailing addresses or email contacts for follow-up invoices.

Ending: People whose fines were reduced were told updated invoices would be mailed and, where applicable, options such as payment plans or deferred findings would be explained in follow-up paperwork.