HALT, UNMARKED STATE PATROL VEHICLES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO STOP ME FOR

LICENSE, EQUIPMENT OR REGISTRATION CHECKS,

ONLY OFFICERS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO STOP ME DURING DAYLIGHT
HOURS ONLY AND ONLY IN A PLAINLY MARKED VEHICLE.
“RCW 46.64.070 provides in pertinent part:
To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state
patrol are hereby empowered during “DAYLIGHT HOURS” and while using “PLAINLY
MARKED STATE PATROL VEHICLES” to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated
on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver’s license and/or to submit the motor
vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies
with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter
amended. NO CRIMINAL CITATION SHALL BE ISSUED FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS
AFTER GIVING A WARNING TICKET POINTING OUT THE DEFECT.” STATE v.
MARCHAND, 104 Wn.2d 434, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 706 P.2d 225 [No. 50754-6. En Banc.
September 12, 1985.] And

“RCW 46.64.070 was not enacted as a vehicle to gain entry to automobiles for the purpose of
conducting exploratory searches. The intent was to allow troopers of the Washington State Patrol to
make vehicle inspections “to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment
requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW.” STATE v. SHOEMAKER, 11 Wn.App. 187, 190,
191, 192, 193, 522 P.2d 203 (May 9, 1974). And;

“OFFICERS WITHOUT WARRANT HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERCEPT TRAVELERS

ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY AT NIGHT for purpose of finding some one in act of violating law; and
arrest for misdemeanor without warrant on information or suspicion of being unlawful act.” Mitchell v.
Hughes, 104 Wash. 231, 176 P. 26 (1918). And;

“STATE OF WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION FROM OLYMPIA written by

ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN J. O’CONNEL on December 10, 1959. THIS OPINION CONCLUDES
THAT POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO STOP MOTORISTS
SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THEIR DRIVER’S LICENSES. And the
WASHINGTON STATE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT: Under the rationale of the holding in
Seattle v. Mesiani, 110 Wn.2d 454, 755 P.2d 775 (1988), AGO 88 (1959) IS STILL VALID AND
CORRECT.” STATE v. SMITS, 58 Wn.App. 333, 340, 341, 792 P.2d 565 (June 25, 1990). And;

See the definition of “Public Highway” at RCW 47.04.010 & RCW 36.75.010 (11) to wit:
“[E]very way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington
OPEN AS A MATTER OF RIGHT TO PUBLIC VEHICULAR TRAVEL both inside and outside the
limits of incorporated cities and town. (Emphasis Added). And;
Officer, I want to inform you that my Lawyer Luis Anthony Ewing will be helping me beat
all of your Tickets that exceeded the scope of your authority in a CIVIL TRAFFIC STOP!

Sincerely, ______________________ Signed this ____ day of __________, A.D. 2002

Ticket/Rico Cause No. ____________ Lawyer Luis Anthony Ewing’s Cell Phone: (253) 202-1911
and E-Mail Address: <rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com>