Judge Grant reduces fines, defers and dismisses multiple Lake Forest Park photo-ticket cases

Judge Grant presided over the Lake Forest Park Municipal Court’s remote infraction calendar on Feb. 18, 2025, resolving dozens of photo-enforcement and traffic infractions, including multiple school walk-zone speed and red-light camera citations. Outcomes included deferred findings for two defendants, several fine reductions, several dismissals where the registered owner affirmed they were not the driver, and one contested finding after a testimony.

The hearing matters were mostly camera-generated citations issued in Lake Forest Park’s school walk-zone and photo-enforced locations. Judge Grant explained mitigation and contested-hearing options for defendants, described the local deferred-finding procedure and reviewed photographic and video evidence where requested. "A deferred finding is a resolution that's permitted by the legislature," Grant said during the calendar, laying out the conditions (six months without a new moving infraction and a $175 administrative fee in Lake Forest Park).

Why it matters: Lake Forest Park has recently expanded photo enforcement in and around schools and walk zones. The calendar illustrated how the city and court are processing camera-issued citations — using mitigation reductions for many drivers, deferring some infractions under statutory rules, and dismissing cases when a registered owner swore they were not the driver. Those outcomes affect motorists’ driving records and the city’s enforcement data.

Major dispositions and notable cases

- Nicholas Davis (case referenced on the record): Judge Grant allowed a deferred finding for Mr. Davis’s electronic-device and related insurance matters, following the court’s local deferred-finding practice. Davis must pay the $175 administrative fee and have no new moving infractions for six months; the fee was due March 20, 2025.

- Vivian Morgan Van Nest (case 240306705): The citation arising from an intersection-photo enforcement was dismissed after Derek Van Nest (registered owner) affirmed under oath that he was not the driver that day and Vivian testified she had been driving; the judge dismissed the matter because photo tickets are tied to the registered owner and can be dismissed when the owner swears they were not driving.

- Albert England (case 480713644): Judge Grant offered and England accepted a deferred finding covering two infractions (electronic device while driving and expired registration greater than two months). Terms: $175 administrative fee; six months without new moving infractions; fee due March 20, 2025.

- Multiple school walk-zone speed citations were mitigated: Lynn Hall’s 32 mph citation was reduced to $75; James Hodges’s December 25 citation was mitigated to $75; James Henry’s 32 mph citation was cut to $90; and Vadim (Pugachev) had his 32 mph citation reduced to $75. Several other defendants similarly received mitigated penalties in the $75–$100 range after mitigation hearings.

- John Scott and several other registered owners (including Juliana Jones and Jingliang Mao) had photo citations dismissed after they affirmed under oath that they were not the drivers. The court explained the required "declaration of non‑responsibility" or an on‑the-record affirmation leads to dismissal for registered owners who did not drive the vehicle.

- Thug Thak (name in record): For a high-speed school-zone citation that had been doubled for the speed above the doubled threshold, the judge reduced the penalty from $290 to $225 after mitigation.

- Susan Waldron (two photo tickets): The judge reduced the first violation to $100 and dismissed the second. Waldron said she had completed a driver course for seniors; the court credited the mitigation and dismissed the second notice.

- Adam Guy (contested hearing): Mr. Guy contested a school walk-zone citation and sought the officer’s attendance; the judge read the officer’s sworn statement and the photo/video evidence, placed Guy under oath and found by a preponderance that Guy had traveled 37 mph in a posted 25-mph area. The court found the violation committed and assessed the full $145 penalty (Judge Grant explained defendants may appeal to Superior Court within 30 days).

- Quang Buie (registration/parking matter): Buie told the court he had overlooked an expired registration and a sticker warning; the judge reduced the $45 citation to $25 and warned that the vehicle must not remain on the street with expired registration.

- Elias Waldensen (red-light photo ticket): The judge reduced a red-light photo citation to $90 after hearing that the defendant had been rushing a sick family member to the emergency room.

- Defaults and administrative dispositions: At least one calendar item (a defendant who did not appear) was found committed by default and subject to the statutory penalty; the court noted that failure to appear will trigger collection steps and additional fees.

Court procedure and clarifications

Judge Grant repeatedly explained the difference between a contested hearing (where the judge considers an officer’s sworn statement and any testimony) and a mitigation hearing (where a defendant acknowledges the violation and asks the court to reduce the penalty). She clarified that for camera-based school walk-zone enforcement the area’s posted speed limit is 25 mph unless the school-zone beacon is flashing (in which case the limit drops to 20 mph). The judge also told multiple defendants that the city posts signs notifying drivers that the area is photo enforced, and that officers review the photos/video and sign the officer’s sworn statement under penalty of perjury.

What’s next

The court sent updated invoices and written orders to defendants who received mitigation reductions or deferred findings. Several defendants were instructed how and where to pay and were reminded of deadlines for administrative fees and the six-month deferred-finding review. People wishing to challenge a committed infraction were told to file a notice of appeal within 30 days to bring the matter to Superior Court.

Ending note: The calendar underscored the court’s typical mix of dispositions for camera-issued citations — many mitigated fines, a few deferred findings, and dismissals when the registered owner was not the operator — and flagged ongoing community concern about expanded photo enforcement in Lake Forest Park.