Lake Forest Park municipal court grants deferred findings, dismisses multiple camera and discovery cases

Judge Grant presided over the Lake Forest Park municipal court afternoon infraction calendar on Jan. 6, 2025, where the court granted deferred findings in several traffic cases, dismissed numerous photo- and camera-ticket matters for discovery deficiencies, and continued a small number of cases at the defense request.

The courtroom session matters matter to motorists and defense lawyers because the rulings affect the status of pending infractions (deferred findings versus dismissal) and clarify the court’s approach to discovery for automated enforcement and speed-measuring-device evidence.

Key rulings and case scheduling Judge Grant granted deferred findings in multiple cases after defense counsel and the prosecutor confirmed agreed paperwork and conditions. Defense attorney Craig Cahoon announced he had prepared deferred-finding forms and that the conditions included a six-month deferral, no moving-traffic infractions during that period and an administrative payment of $1.75. Cahoon confirmed this for the Del Goble matter (case 4a0674958) and for Billy Mendez Ramirez (case 480483439). The court recorded the same six-month, no-moving-violation, $1.75 condition when it granted a deferred finding in the Zakharov matter (case 4a0845410).

The court also granted suppression and dismissal motions where the prosecutor lacked supporting evidence or required witnesses. In a speed-evidence dispute in the Shinji Yu matter (case 4a0454465), the defense moved to suppress speed inferences because the requested speed-measuring-device expert was not present; the court granted the suppression and dismissed the case. Judge Grant likewise granted a defense motion to suppress and dismiss in the Deepak Singh matter after the prosecutor’s discovery response did not include required materials the defense cited.

Several automated camera and photo-ticket cases were dismissed after defense counsel raised discovery deficiencies—most commonly the absence of PIN/login details or confirmation needed to access photo evidence or the prosecutor’s failure to file an expected declaration of nonresponsibility (DNR). Defense attorneys Dan Sammis and Rene Roschendel moved repeatedly for suppression and dismissal under the court’s infraction discovery rules; the court granted those motions in multiple matters on the calendar.

Continuances and scheduling The court continued Justin Patterson’s matter (case 480484162) to Feb. 10 after defense counsel Keith Eilers asked for additional time to review discovery. Carolyn Roblewski’s matter (case 4a0724419) was continued to the March 10 calendar at 1:30 p.m. after defense counsel Andrew Nguyen waived speedy-hearing deadlines to complete conditions.

At-a-glance outcomes (selected cases from the Jan. 6 calendar) - Case 4a0674958 — Del Goble: Deferred finding granted; six-month deferral, no moving-traffic infractions during the period, $1.75 administrative payment. (Defense: Craig Cahoon; prosecutor: Carmen McDonald.)

- Case 480483439 — Billy Mendez Ramirez: Deferred finding granted; six-month deferral, no moving-traffic infractions, $1.75 administrative payment. (Defense: Craig Cahoon; prosecutor: Carmen McDonald.)

- Case 4a0845410 — Russell Zakharov: Deferred finding granted; six-month deferral, no moving-traffic infractions, $1.75 administrative payment. (Defense: identified counsel; court record.)

- Case 4a0454465 — Shinji Yu: Motion to suppress speed-related inference granted and case dismissed; prosecutor’s speed-measuring-device expert was not present in court. (Defense counsel raised suppression; judge granted motion.)

- Case 4a0724419 — Carolyn Roblewski: Continued to March 10 at 1:30 p.m.; defense waived speedy-hearing deadlines to complete agreed conditions. (Defense: Andrew Nguyen; prosecutor: Carmen McDonald.)

- Case 480484162 — Justin Patterson: Continued to Feb. 10 at defense request (waiver of speedy hearing) so counsel can review discovery provided by the prosecutor. (Defense: Keith Eilers; prosecutor: Carmen McDonald.)

- Multiple camera/photo-ticket matters dismissed for discovery defects (PIN/login missing or DNR not on file). Selected case numbers recorded on the transcript where the court granted dismissal include 240264300, 240250960, 242217316, 240238395, 240256207, 240216474, 240240763 and 240221839. In each, defense counsel moved to suppress and dismiss under the court’s infraction discovery rule; the court granted the motions for lack of evidence sufficient for the city to proceed.

What the court and attorneys said Carmen McDonald, appearing for the city, routinely stated the prosecutor’s position and confirmed when the city had no objection to defense continuances or deferred-finding paperwork. Craig Cahoon, defense counsel, told the court he had prepared and signed deferred-finding forms and said, “I’ll make sure he’s aware of that, your honor,” when confirming conditions for a defendant.

Judge Grant repeatedly noted discovery-based dismissals during the calendar, saying in multiple rulings, “I will suppress and dismiss,” after finding the city could not proceed without required discovery or witness evidence.

Context and next steps The calendar reflects two recurring themes: court enforcement of discovery obligations in automated-enforcement and photo-ticket cases, and routine use of deferred findings when defense counsel and the prosecutor agree to conditions. Several dismissals were technical and rooted in the prosecutor’s delivery (or filing) of discovery items that defense counsel said were needed to access evidence. Where the defense requested continuances and waived speedy-hearing timelines, the court reset dates to allow counsel to complete conditions or review discovery.

The clerk and counsel noted the court will circulate completed deferred-finding paperwork to attorneys, and several attorneys asked to receive updated master calendars for future readiness and trial dates.

Ending The court concluded the afternoon calendar after completing the deferred-finding paperwork and the dismissals and set the continued matters for the dates above. Judge Grant closed the session and indicated the court would reconvene on the next scheduled calendar date.