Safety camera infractions — Presumption.
(1) In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under RCW 46.63.170 or detected through the use of an automated school bus safety camera under RCW 46.63.180, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was in violation of any such provision of RCW 46.63.170 and 46.63.180, together with proof that the person named in the notice of traffic infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, constitutes in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred.
(2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.
[2012 c 83 § 6; 2011 c 375 § 7; 2011 c 375 § 6; 2010 c 249 § 7; 2005 c 167 § 3; 2004 c 231 § 3.]
| Contingent effective date -- 2011 c 375 §§ 5, 7, and 9: See note following RCW 46.63.030.|
Intent -- 2011 c 375: See note following RCW 46.63.180.
Contingent effective date -- 2010 c 249: See note following RCW 47.56.795.