King County Sheriff Traffic Violation Complaint
Shoreline Police / KCSO Vehicle C0328C
Summary
On May 25, 2026, a marked Shoreline Police / King County Sheriff's Office vehicle with Washington plate C0328C was recorded northbound on Aurora Ave N in Shoreline, Washington.
The vehicle appears to continue straight through two consecutive intersections, at N 165th St and N 167th St, from lanes marked and signed as right-turn-only. No activated emergency lights are visible in the footage.
A formal complaint was submitted to the King County Sheriff's Office Internal Investigations Unit. KCSO handled the review under case number IIU2026-102 and later stated that it found no misconduct or policy violations.
Investigation Timeline
KCSO's Internal Investigations Unit handled the complaint as case number IIU2026-102. The complaint concerned a marked Shoreline Police / KCSO vehicle that appeared to continue straight from lanes marked and signed as right-turn-only on Aurora Ave N at approximately N 165th St and N 167th St.
The disposition letter stated that KCSO determined there were no acts of misconduct or policy violations by members of the department. The later-produced finding document states that the right lane on Aurora Ave N in this area is a “Transit HOV lane,” that HOVs and emergency vehicles may continue straight, and that, based on WAC 468-510-010(5) and RCW 46.61.165(2), there was no violation.
On June 16, 2026, the public-records request produced the IIU investigation report and finding document. The finding document also states that IIU and OLEO reviewed the case and agreed to an expedited finding: “service or policy concern.”
Public Memorandum
This memorandum concerns a King County Sheriff's Office / Shoreline Police vehicle observed on Aurora Ave N in Shoreline, Washington, on May 25, 2026. The vehicle was recorded traveling northbound through two intersections, approximately at N 165th St and N 167th St, from the far-right lane. At both locations, the far-right lane was marked with right-turn-only pavement markings and a roadside sign stating “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT.” The vehicle continued straight through the intersections. The video did not show activated emergency lights.
The complaint did not turn on whether police vehicles may ever use restricted lanes. The complaint raised a narrower issue: whether a marked police vehicle, apparently not using emergency lights, may disregard official right-turn-only traffic-control devices and continue straight through an intersection.
The original complaint identified RCW 46.61.050 and RCW 46.61.140(3) as the relevant traffic-control-device and lane-use provisions. It also asked KCSO to identify the factual and legal basis for any authorized-emergency-vehicle exception under RCW 46.61.035.
The internal investigation record appears to have taken a different legal path. Instead of directly analyzing the right-turn-only signs and pavement markings, the record relied on WAC 468-510-010(5), an HOV-lane rule that allows certain marked law-enforcement and fire vehicles to use HOV lanes. The record also referenced RCW 46.61.165(2), a provision concerning transit-only / preferential-use lanes and private transportation provider vehicles.
In my view, that reasoning appears incomplete for two reasons. First, the investigation record itself states that the location was a bus lane and not an HOV lane. If the location was not an HOV lane, WAC 468-510-010(5) does not appear to directly apply. Second, even if WAC 468-510-010(5) did apply, it appears to authorize certain vehicles to use HOV lanes; it does not appear to state that those vehicles may disregard separate right-turn-only traffic-control devices at an intersection.
The missing analysis is therefore significant. To support a no-violation conclusion, the investigation would need to identify a specific legal rule that allowed this vehicle to continue straight despite the “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” control. The record does not appear to identify such a rule. If KCSO intended to rely on the authorized-emergency-vehicle exception, the investigation should have analyzed RCW 46.61.035 and identified the relevant emergency-call, pursuit, fire-alarm, or visual-signal facts. The record does not appear to do so.
The concern is not simply disagreement with a discretionary discipline outcome. The concern is that the investigation's legal reasoning appears incomplete: it answers whether certain police vehicles may use an HOV lane, but it does not appear to answer whether this police vehicle may disregard a right-turn-only traffic-control device in a bus/right-turn lane.
Analysis of IIU Reasoning
This section summarizes my understanding of how the IIU investigation report's legal reasoning appears to operate, and where that reasoning appears incomplete.
How the Report's Logic Appears to Work
- The issue appears to shift from right-turn-only compliance to restricted-lane access. The original complaint focused on whether the vehicle obeyed official traffic-control devices under RCW 46.61.050 and lane-use rules under RCW 46.61.140(3). The investigation record appears to treat the central question as whether a police vehicle may use a restricted lane.
- The record cites an HOV rule. The record relies on WAC 468-510-010(5), which allows certain marked law-enforcement and fire vehicles to use HOV lanes. That rule appears to address HOV-lane use; it does not appear to automatically address bus lanes or override right-turn-only signs.
- The record cites a preferential-use / transit-only lane statute. The record also references RCW 46.61.165(2). That subsection appears to concern restrictions on what transportation authorities may authorize for private transportation provider vehicles in certain transit-only lanes; it does not appear to be a law-enforcement authorization provision.
- The record reportedly identifies the location as a bus lane and not an HOV lane. That factual classification appears difficult to reconcile with reliance on an HOV-specific WAC provision unless another legal bridge is identified.
- The record reaches a no-violation / no-misconduct conclusion. In my view, the missing step is an identified rule explaining why this vehicle could continue straight despite the “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” control.
Where the Reasoning Appears Incomplete
If the location was not an HOV lane, then WAC 468-510-010(5) does not appear to directly supply the justification. A bus lane, transit-only lane, BAT lane, or right-turn-only lane with a bus exception is not necessarily the same legal category as an HOV lane.
Even if the location were treated as an HOV lane, permission to use that lane would not necessarily mean permission to disregard separate intersection controls, including a “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” sign, “ONLY” pavement markings, or right-turn arrows. A separate legal rule would appear necessary to authorize ignoring those directional controls.
If RCW 46.61.165(2) is treated as police-vehicle authorization, the connection is not apparent from the text. The subsection appears to address transportation authorities and private transportation provider vehicles, not to grant law-enforcement vehicles authority to proceed straight from a right-turn-only / bus-excepted lane.
If KCSO intended to rely on the authorized-emergency-vehicle exception, the analysis would need to address RCW 46.61.035, including whether the vehicle was responding to an emergency call, pursuing an offender, responding to a fire alarm, and whether the visual-signal requirements were met. Police status alone does not appear to automatically excuse compliance with traffic controls.
In short: even assuming WAC 468-510-010(5) applied, it would appear to authorize use of an HOV lane at most. It does not appear to authorize disregarding a separate right-turn-only traffic-control device.
Incident Details
- Date
- Monday, May 25, 2026
- Time
- approximately 8:47 PM to 8:48 PM local time
- Vehicle
- Marked Shoreline Police / King County Sheriff's Office vehicle
- Plate
- Washington C0328C
- Fleet marking
- E17779 displayed vertically on the left rear area
- Direction
- Northbound on Aurora Ave N, Shoreline, WA
- Locations
- N 165th St and N 167th St
Video
Still Frames
Complaint Letter
To the King County Sheriff's Office Internal Investigations Unit,
I am filing a formal misconduct complaint regarding a Shoreline Police / King County Sheriff's Office vehicle that I observed twice disregarding mandatory right-turn-only lane controls on Aurora Ave N in Shoreline, Washington.
Incident details
- Date
- Monday, May 25, 2026
- Time
- approximately 8:47 PM to 8:48 PM local time
- Vehicle
- Washington plate C0328C
- Fleet marking
- “E17779” displayed vertically on the left rear area
- Agency marking
- Shoreline Police / KCSO vehicle
- Direction
- northbound on Aurora Ave N
- Emergency equipment
- no emergency lights were activated during the recorded incidents
- Evidence
- one-minute dashcam recording; license plate is clearly visible
Incident 1
Location: Aurora Ave N northbound at N 165th St, Shoreline, WA
Observed conduct: The police vehicle was in the far-right lane. The pavement markings showed a right-turn-only arrow and “ONLY,” and a roadside sign stated “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT.” The vehicle continued straight through the intersection instead of turning right.
Incident 2
Location: Aurora Ave N northbound at N 167th St, Shoreline, WA
Observed conduct: The same police vehicle again used the far-right lane marked with a right-turn-only arrow and “ONLY,” with a roadside “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” sign, and again continued straight through the intersection instead of turning right.
My allegation is that the driver failed to obey official traffic-control devices and mandatory lane-use directions. The relevant Washington statutes include RCW 46.61.050 and RCW 46.61.140(3). If any emergency-vehicle exception is asserted, please identify the factual and legal basis for that exception. RCW 46.61.035 allows certain emergency-vehicle privileges only under stated conditions, and subsection (3) ties those exemptions to the use of required visual signals. My dashcam video shows no activated emergency lights.
I request that KCSO open this as a formal complaint, assign a complaint/case number, preserve any body-camera, dash-camera, CAD, AVL/GPS, radio, dispatch, and vehicle assignment records associated with vehicle C0328C during the relevant time window, and investigate whether the involved employee violated Washington law, KCSO policy, Shoreline Police policy, or applicable standards of conduct.
I further request that this matter not be treated solely as an internal disciplinary issue if the same conduct, under the same circumstances, would subject an ordinary driver to a traffic stop, citation, notice of infraction, or traffic-court process. Internal review may be appropriate, but it should not substitute for ordinary legal accountability. Please determine whether this incident should be referred to the appropriate authority for issuance of a traffic citation or notice of infraction, and for handling through the normal court or traffic-infraction process.
I also request a written response explaining:
- how this complaint is classified;
- who is assigned to review or investigate it;
- whether the conduct is sustained, exonerated, unfounded, non-sustained, or otherwise classified;
- whether corrective action, training, counseling, discipline, referral, citation, or notice of infraction is imposed;
- whether the matter will be handled, referred, or reviewed through the same traffic-enforcement process that would apply to an ordinary driver;
- if no citation, notice of infraction, referral, or other external legal action is taken, the specific reason why a marked police vehicle operating without emergency lights may disregard mandatory right-turn-only lane controls in circumstances where an ordinary driver would likely be stopped or cited.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and provide instructions for submitting the dashcam video in a way that preserves metadata. I can provide the original file and still-frame screenshots upon request.
I am copying the Shoreline Police Chief and Shoreline City Manager because the incident involved a Shoreline-assigned KCSO vehicle operating within the City of Shoreline, and Shoreline's own website states that the Police Chief reports to both the King County Sheriff and the Shoreline City Manager.
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
May 25, 2026
References
- RCW 46.61.050: obedience to official traffic-control devices.
- RCW 46.61.140: driving on roadways laned for traffic.
- RCW 46.61.035: authorized emergency-vehicle privileges and conditions.
Correspondence
Good morning,
My name is Sgt. Sprecher with the King County Sheriff's Office Internal Investigations Unit. I have received your complaint and will be doing an intake on it. You can reply to this email with the dash camera footage if you would like. If you would like to do a recorded interview, please let me know and we could schedule one. If you have anything you would like to add you can also do that via email. Please respond to this email by 5 PM on Friday, 05/29/26, with any additional information.
Respectfully,
Sgt. Sprecher
Good morning Sgt. Sprecher,
Thank you for your response.
I would like to provide additional evidence for your intake review. I have prepared an evidence page that includes the dash camera video and relevant still images:
https://media.x-research.com/shoreline-police-c0328c-traffic-violation.html
The dash camera video file is also available directly here:
https://media.x-research.com/2026-05-25_ShorelinePolice_C0328C.mp4
Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing either link, or if you would prefer that I provide the video in another format.
Respectfully,
[name withheld]
Subject: Follow-up: Evidence receipt and complaint/case number for C0328C traffic complaint
Hi Sgt. Sprecher,
I’m following up on my complaint regarding the Shoreline Police / KCSO vehicle with Washington plate C0328C, observed on May 25, 2026 on northbound Aurora Ave N near N 165th St and N 167th St.
Could you please confirm that you received the raw dashcam footage I sent, and that the file is accessible on your end? If you need the original file in a different format or through a different submission method to preserve metadata, I’m happy to provide it.
Could you also let me know the complaint, incident, or case number I should reference for future follow-up, and which office or unit is handling the review?
Finally, as the reporting party, could you let me know whether I should expect a written disposition or outcome of the complaint, and if so, what the normal follow-up process is?
Thank you,
[name withheld]
Good afternoon,
I received the footage and have submitted the intake to the King County Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. The KCSO Internal Investigations Unit will be handling the review, and it has been assigned case number IIU2026-102. There is a 180-day timeline to complete investigations.
Respectfully,
Sgt. Sprecher
Re: Employee Complaint
Dear [name withheld],
Thank you for bringing your concerns about an incident to our attention. The King County Sheriff's Office takes all complaints seriously. The incident has been documented under case# IIU2026-102.
After reviewing your complaint, it was determined that there were no acts of misconduct or policy violations by members of this department. Based on WAC 468-510-010(5) and RCW 46.61.165(2).
I sincerely hope any future contacts you may have with members of this department are of a positive nature. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call our Internal Investigations Unit at (206) 263-2525.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA COLE-TINDALL, SHERIFF
Captain BJ Myers
Captain BJ Myers
Internal Investigations Unit
206-263-2525
Subject: Follow-up question regarding case IIU2026-102
To the King County Sheriff's Office Internal Investigations Unit,
Thank you for your response regarding case IIU2026-102.
I have a follow-up question about the legal basis cited in the determination. Your letter cites WAC 468-510-010(5) and RCW 46.61.165(2). My understanding is that WAC 468-510-010 addresses vehicles authorized to use HOV lanes, and RCW 46.61.165 provides authority for HOV, transit-only, and other preferential-use lanes.
However, the lane involved in my complaint was not marked as an HOV lane. It was the far-right lane marked “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT,” with an “Except Buses” exception. Based on the signage, I understood it as a right-turn-only lane with a bus exception, rather than an HOV lane.
Could you please clarify how WAC 468-510-010(5) applies to that specific lane configuration?
In particular, I would appreciate clarification on whether IIU determined that:
- The lane was legally designated as an HOV lane;
- The lane was a transit-only, bus-only, BAT, or other preferential-use lane to which WAC 468-510-010(5) also applies;
- The deputy was exempt from the posted lane-use restriction under a separate authorized-emergency-vehicle statute or policy; or
- Some other legal basis applied.
If the determination relied on a statute, rule, department policy, or traffic-lane designation other than WAC 468-510-010(5), could you please identify it?
I am not seeking to be argumentative; I am simply trying to understand the basis for the finding, because the cited HOV-lane rule does not appear on its face to directly address a right-turn-only lane marked “Except Buses.”
Thank you for your time and clarification.
Sincerely,
[name withheld],
Would you like me to submit a public records request on your behalf?
You may do so yourself at the following link.
KING COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE WA ONLINE RECORDS REQUEST
https://kcso.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP/_rs/(S(pjfdapbugn3unzdro0hi3b5k))/SupportHome.aspx
Thank you,
Jamie Burg
Admin Specialist lll SDA
King County Sheriffs Office
Internal Investigations Unit
516 3rd Ave Rm W-116
Seattle, WA 98104
206-263-2525
Hi Jamie,
Thank you. I will submit the public records request myself so that I can track it directly.
For clarity, my public records request is not intended to replace, withdraw, or narrow my complaint/follow-up regarding IIU2026-102. I am still requesting that IIU confirm the current status of the case, whether the matter has been investigated or closed, and what determination or corrective action, if any, has been made.
I am copying OLEO and the City for oversight/awareness, because my concern remains about the handling and resolution of the underlying complaint, not only access to records.
For context, I have maintained a factual chronology and evidence archive for this matter here:
https://www.x-research.com/king-county-sheriff/
The page includes the original complaint, evidence links, the IIU case number, the disposition letter, and my follow-up question regarding the cited legal basis.
Thank you,
[name withheld]
On June 16, 2026, through the public-records request, I retrieved the IIU investigation report and the finding document for IIU2026-102.
The finding document states:
A community member alleged Deputy Goundar violated a traffic law on 5/25/2026 by driving through an intersection on Aurora Ave N and N 165 St in Shoreline. Here there is a RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT sign. However, the right line on Aurora Ave N in this area is a Transit HOV lane, which allows HOVs and emergency vehicles to continue straight. Based on WAC 468-510-010(5) and RCW 46.61.165(2), there was no violation.
IIU and OLEO reviewed this case and agreed to an expedited finding - service or policy concern.
The investigation report also states:
I spoke to Capt. Woodruff and the location is a bus lane and not an HOV lane.
Subject: Request for OLEO review of legal-analysis defect in KCSO IIU2026-102
Dear Office of Law Enforcement Oversight,
I am writing to request OLEO's review of a concrete legal-analysis defect in KCSO IIU case IIU2026-102.
I am not asking OLEO simply to substitute my judgment for IIU's. I am asking OLEO to address whether the investigation can be considered thorough and objective when the record appears to rely on legal authority that does not answer the complaint's central issue.
The complaint concerned a marked Shoreline Police / KCSO vehicle traveling straight from a lane marked “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT” on Aurora Ave N at approximately N 165th St and N 167th St. The video did not show activated emergency lights. The complaint identified RCW 46.61.050 and RCW 46.61.140(3) as the relevant traffic-control-device and lane-use provisions, and asked KCSO to identify any factual and legal basis for an authorized-emergency-vehicle exception under RCW 46.61.035.
The investigation record instead appears to rely on WAC 468-510-010(5) and RCW 46.61.165(2). That reasoning appears defective for at least two reasons:
- WAC 468-510-010(5) is an HOV-lane rule. The investigation record itself states that the location was a “bus lane and not an HOV lane.” If the location was not an HOV lane, please explain how WAC 468-510-010(5) can be the dispositive authority.
- Even assuming WAC 468-510-010(5) applied, it would at most authorize certain marked law-enforcement or fire vehicles to use an HOV lane. It does not state that such vehicles may disregard separate right-turn-only traffic-control devices at an intersection.
RCW 46.61.165(2) also does not appear to supply the missing authority. That subsection appears to restrict what transportation authorities may authorize for private transportation provider vehicles in certain transit-only lanes. It does not grant any authority to law-enforcement vehicles, and it does not create an exception to right-turn-only traffic-control devices.
Please let me know:
- Did OLEO certify or otherwise approve the IIU2026-102 investigation as thorough, objective, and timely?
- If so, did OLEO review the above legal-analysis issue before certification?
- Does OLEO agree that WAC 468-510-010(5) can apply even though the investigation record states the location was a bus lane and not an HOV lane?
- Does OLEO agree that WAC 468-510-010(5), even if applicable, authorizes a marked police vehicle to disregard a separate right-turn-only traffic-control device?
- What legal conclusion did IIU draw from RCW 46.61.165(2), given that the subsection appears to restrict private transportation provider vehicles rather than authorize law-enforcement vehicles?
- Did IIU analyze RCW 46.61.035 or identify any emergency-call, pursuit, fire-alarm, or visual-signal facts supporting an authorized-emergency-vehicle exception?
- Will OLEO request supplemental investigation, clarification, correction, or reconsideration from KCSO/IIU?
For reference, I have summarized the legal issue here:
https://www.x-research.com/king-county-sheriff/#analysis-of-iiu-reasoning
Please preserve all OLEO records concerning IIU2026-102, including certification notes, review notes, communications with KCSO/IIU, and any legal or policy analysis.
Sincerely,
[name withheld]
Subject: RE: OLEO Complaint Form #67
Good afternoon,
Thank you for reaching out to us with your concern regarding IIU2026-102. OLEO did review this case and agreed to classify it as a service or policy concern, effectively certifying it as thorough, objective and timely. Our understanding is that RCW 46.65.165 regulates HOV lanes, however subsection (2) clarifies that for HOV lanes abutting businesses, such as the lane this deputy was traveling in, private transportation is not authorized, which is why it was classified as a bus-only lane. However, it is still considered an HOV lane per this RCW. WAC 468-510-010(5), drawing on RCW 46.65.165, further clarifies that the sheriff’s office vehicle in question is also authorized to use this lane. Therefore, we agree with the IIU finding that no law or policy was violated by the deputy and will not be requesting any further review or investigation.
OLEO considers this matter closed. Further communications about this matter will be read and filed but not responded to. Should you have complaints about any other matter related to potential misconduct by KCSO employees, please contact us. Thank you.
Richard Powell
Investigations Analyst | King County Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO)
Related public-records requests submitted to the City of Shoreline, King County Sheriff's Office, and King County Council are tracked here: Public Records Requests.