When fighting a traffic ticket or civil infraction in Washington, where the case is heard matters. The venue—or proper location for a legal proceeding—is governed by a specific court rule: IRLJ 2.3. This rule is vital for ensuring that infractions are prosecuted in the correct jurisdiction and that defendants have a fair opportunity to respond to allegations.
Let’s explore what IRLJ 2.3 says about venue in infraction cases, and how it can affect your legal rights.
What Is IRLJ 2.3?
IRLJ 2.3 is part of Washington’s Infraction Rules for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction. It establishes the default venue for where infraction cases must be filed:
“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, an infraction case shall be brought in the district court district or the municipality where the infraction occurred.”
In simple terms: the case must be filed where the alleged infraction happened—not where the officer works or where the driver lives.
What Happens If the Venue Is Incorrect?
If a traffic ticket or infraction is filed in the wrong court, IRLJ 2.3 provides a remedy:
“If a notice of infraction is filed in a court which is not the proper venue, the notice shall be dismissed without prejudice on motion of either party.”
This means that if you (or the prosecutor) realize the case is being handled in the wrong jurisdiction, a motion can be filed to dismiss it. The dismissal is “without prejudice,” which means the case can be refiled in the correct venue.
Why Venue Matters in Traffic Cases
1. Ensures Local Accountability
Requiring infractions to be prosecuted where they occurred helps ensure local law enforcement and courts remain accountable to the community they serve.
2. Convenience for Defendants
Being forced to appear in a distant court for a local traffic ticket would create unnecessary hardship. IRLJ 2.3 helps prevent that.
3. Upholds Due Process
Improper venue could lead to confusion, missed court dates, and default judgments. Dismissing improperly filed cases protects the defendant’s right to due process.
Can You Use IRLJ 2.3 to Get a Ticket Dismissed?
Yes—but only in specific situations. If you’ve received a notice of infraction and believe it was filed in the wrong court (for example, a ticket issued in King County but filed in a court in Pierce County), you or your attorney can file a motion to dismiss under IRLJ 2.3.
It’s important to act promptly—ideally before a hearing is scheduled—to avoid waiving the objection.
Get Help Navigating Washington’s Traffic Rules
Understanding procedural rules like IRLJ 2.3 can make a big difference in your case outcome. Whether you’re dealing with a venue issue or exploring other defenses, having a knowledgeable attorney can help you protect your rights.
Contact Blanford Law today at ken@blanfordlaw.com or 253‑720‑9304 for guidance on your legal matter.
Additional Resources
- Carrying on Vehicle Exterior – RCW 46.61.660 WA Law — Explains Washington’s rule prohibiting the transport of people or animals on the outside of vehicles.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/carrying-persons-animals-vehicle-exterior-washington/ - Understanding RCW 9.73.030 – Intercepting Private Communication — Details when recording conversations without consent violates Washington law.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/understanding-rcw-9-73-030-intercepting-recording-or-divulging-private-communication/ - Bellevue v. Lightfoot – The Importance of Authenticating Radar Evidence — Reviews how radar-based speeding tickets must meet evidentiary standards in court.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/bellevue-v-lightfoot-the-importance-of-authenticating-radar-evidence/ - Divulging Telegrams Under WA Law — Outlines how historic privacy laws still influence modern legal interpretations in Washington.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/divulging-telegram-law/ - Spousal Immunity in Washington State — Describes when spouses can and cannot be compelled to testify against each other.
🔗 https://blanfordlaw.com/spousal-immunity-in-washington-state-an-overview-of-rcw-5-60-0601/