Judge Grant resolves traffic and photo-ticket cases Oct. 13; deferred findings, reduced fines, one dismissal

Judge Jennifer Grant presided over an infraction calendar held remotely Oct. 13, 2025, resolving a slate of traffic and automated-camera citations that included speeding, red-light and school-walk-zone photo tickets, cell-phone-while-driving citations and an equipment violation. Cases were handled individually; outcomes included deferred findings, reduced fines, a dismissal for an incorrectly cited statute and default findings for absent defendants.

The most consequential outcomes included deferred findings that, if the defendants comply, will lead to dismissal after six months. Judge Grant offered a deferred finding to Peter Grimm (case 580731492) for a speeding citation that recorded him 26 mph over the limit; Grimm accepted the deferred finding and must pay a $175 administrative fee and maintain a clean driving record for six months for the charge to be dismissed. The judge also granted a deferred finding covering two infractions for Michael Lubbering (case 580657220) — the pair will be deferred together for a single $175 fee provided no new violations are recorded during the six-month period.

Judge Grant described the deferred option on the record as “a wonderful option” and explained the conditions and statutory limits: deferred findings are limited to once every seven years and are conditioned on staying violation-free during the six-month monitoring period.

Several other drivers received reduced fines or alternatives to pay. The judge reduced penalties in mitigation hearings for multiple automated-camera and officer-issued violations: Husek’s red-light photo ticket was reduced to $90; Matthew Hill’s school-walk-zone speed notice was reduced to $100; John Libby’s company-vehicle school-walk-zone notice was reduced to $75; Georgia Turkovich’s school-walk-zone speed notice was reduced to $75; and one motorist cited for cell-phone use, Gangali Ghamane (50711738), was not eligible for a deferred finding because of a prior deferred finding in 2019 but had the fine reduced to $100. In each of these cases the court directed that an invoice and payment instructions be mailed to the address on file.

Judge Grant also explained how school-walk-zone photo enforcement works in the jurisdiction: unlike school-speed zones that apply only when lights flash and school is in session, the statutory school-walk-zone designation creates a fixed 1-mile radius around Brookside Elementary where the posted speed is 25 mph and automated cameras may be used to enforce that limit. “These do not go on your driving record, so you don't have to worry about that. They're treated like a parking ticket,” Judge Grant told one defendant while reducing a camera-based red-light penalty.

In one case, Yuan Wang (case 250253989) received an option to complete three hours of community service in lieu of a $50 reduced fine for a red-light photo citation; Wang told the court he had visual sensitivity and financial difficulty and chose community service. The court instructed that the defendant must return proof from a nonprofit showing hours completed within 30 days and warned that failure to timely provide proof would convert the community service to the reduced fine.

A contested citation involving colored underbody “underglow” lighting was dismissed on a technicality after the court determined the officer cited the wrong Revised Code of Washington section. The defendant (J. Dahl, case 5A0629577) had submitted repair/dealer documentation; Judge Grant concluded the citation was issued under an incorrect RCW number and dismissed the ticket but advised the driver that underbody illumination visible on the roadway can still draw enforcement.

The court also addressed several cases where defendants did not appear. Two school-walk-zone matters for Mohammed Ali (case numbers 250267005 and 250267260) were found committed via default for failure to appear and penalties were imposed. A separate red-light photo matter for Mengistu (case 250286187) was similarly defaulted and penalized.

Procedural details and next steps varied by outcome. Deferred findings require the defendant to sign an agreement (Judge Grant said she would send the agreement to defendants participating by Zoom), pay the administrative fee within 30 days (or set up a court-approved payment plan), and remain violation-free for six months. Reduced fines are handled by mailing an invoice with payment instructions; defendants who chose community service must submit nonprofit-verified proof of service within the court’s deadline.

The session lasted through the afternoon calendar and wrapped after the court entered default findings in absentia for the FTA matters. The calendar recorded multiple Lake Forest Park addresses among participants; the court also referenced citations arising in Everett, Spokane, Shoreline, Burien and on state routes in the area.

The Oct. 13 calendar shows the court applying mitigation, discretion and statutory limits (such as the seven-year deferred-finding rule) across a range of low-level traffic matters, while also using dismissal powers when a citation is materially defective.

Ending note: defendants were instructed to watch for mailed paperwork or invoices from the court and to follow the stated deadlines (payment timelines, signature requirements for deferred findings, or proof-of-service deadlines) to avoid conversion of alternative resolutions back to fines or committed findings.