CVC 21461(A) Ticket for No Parking

[adam_]

California

Cited for 21461(a) failure to obey a regulatory sign.

Driving on the freeway, felt tired. Pulled off at an exit in the middle of nowhere. Snowing that day. Only freeway plowed. Crossed over county maintained road (unplowed), onto the beginning of the entrance ramp. 1/4 mile from freeway still. Engine running, just resting my eyes.... There is a "No parking" sign on the ramp.

CHP arrives within a minute, cites me for "failure to obey sign", VC 21461(a).... WTF I've failed to obey a no parking sign.

So besides this being a weasel citation- (lets not get into splitting hairs over 'stopping, standing and parking'... and I actually did think I could stand there, since I wasn't leaving and the car was running.) I was expecting a "We sir, lets move it along and be safe".

I note that CA VC 21461 explicitly says:

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

When I look at the facts of this event- parking on a state highway ramp with a no parking sign- I find this:

22505. (a) The Department of Transportation with respect to highways under its jurisdiction may place signs or markings prohibiting or restricting the stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles

So I asked for a TBWD. Argued that the section of the VC charged was incorrect, (ie 21461(a) clearly does not apply and in the interest of justice this should be dismissed) AND a defense of necessity (that it was reasonable to pull off the freeway, off a deserted onramp, to avoid falling asleep, that since there was snow on the ground and the roads unplowed, the spot where I stopped was the only available location).

Guilty.

Headed to TDN.


Thoughts?

Thx

[adam_]

Hmm.

Had to figure out where this post belonged, seems it moved...

A parking violation, but cited as a moving violation and therefore a ticketing error... could go in any one of those three forums.

Be interested in any feedback...

A

[That Guy]

California

Cited for 21461(a) failure to obey a regulatory sign.

Driving on the freeway, felt tired. Pulled off at an exit in the middle of nowhere. Snowing that day. Only freeway plowed. Crossed over county maintained road (unplowed), onto the beginning of the entrance ramp. 1/4 mile from freeway still. Engine running, just resting my eyes.... There is a "No parking" sign on the ramp.

CHP arrives within a minute, cites me for "failure to obey sign", VC 21461(a).... WTF I've failed to obey a no parking sign.

So besides this being a weasel citation- (lets not get into splitting hairs over 'stopping, standing and parking'... and I actually did think I could stand there, since I wasn't leaving and the car was running.) I was expecting a "We sir, lets move it along and be safe".

I note that CA VC 21461 explicitly says:

When I look at the facts of this event- parking on a state highway ramp with a no parking sign- I find this:

So I asked for a TBWD. Argued that the section of the VC charged was incorrect, (ie 21461(a) clearly does not apply and in the interest of justice this should be dismissed) AND a defense of necessity (that it was reasonable to pull off the freeway, off a deserted onramp, to avoid falling asleep, that since there was snow on the ground and the roads unplowed, the spot where I stopped was the only available location).

Guilty.

Headed to TDN.

Thoughts?

Thx

It is possible that the officer will testify that you were illegally parked in violation of the "NO PARKING ANYTIME" or "EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY" signage/restriction pursuant to CVC 21718(a). If that is the case, then your argument that "21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500)" will not get you very far in light of the fact that 21718(a) is not part of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

CVC 21718.

(a)

No person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle upon a freeway which has full control of access and no crossings at grade except:

(1) When necessary to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.
(2) When required by law or in obedience to a peace officer or official traffic control device.
(3) When any person is actually engaged in maintenance or construction on freeway property or any employee of a public agency is actually engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) When any vehicle is so disabled that it is impossible to avoid temporarily stopping and another vehicle has been summoned to render assistance to the disabled vehicle or driver of the disabled vehicle. This paragraph applies when the vehicle summoned to render assistance is a vehicle owned by the donor of free emergency assistance that has been summoned by display upon or within a disabled vehicle of a placard or sign given to the driver of the disabled vehicle by the donor for the specific purpose of summoning assistance, other than towing service, from the donor.
(5) Where stopping, standing, or parking is specifically permitted. However, buses may not stop on freeways unless sidewalks are provided with shoulders of sufficient width to permit stopping without interfering with the normal movement of traffic and without the possibility of crossing over fast lanes to reach the bus stop.
(6) Where necessary for any person to report a traffic accident or other situation or incident to a peace officer or any person specified in paragraph (3), either directly or by means of an emergency telephone or similar device.
(7) When necessary for the purpose of rapid removal of impediments to traffic by the owner or operator of a tow truck operating under an agreement with the Department of the California Highway Patrol.

(b) A conviction of a violation of this section is a conviction involving the safe operation of a motor vehicle upon the highway if a notice to appear for the violation was issued by a peace officer described in Section 830.1 or 830.2 of the Penal Code.

If that is the case, you're free to argue:

I) that you were not parked on the freeway per se, but on the "off ramp" from the freeway, but that will depend on whether the off ramp is considered as part of the freeway (I honestly could not definitively say either way)... I would assume that if "Emergency Stopping Only" signs are posted on the off-ramp or not... I checked the CA Supplement to the MUTCD and could only find a single reference to 21718 wherein it states (page 2B-37): "CVC Section 21718 prohibits the stopping, parking or leaving of any vehicle upon a freeway. Large NO PARKING ANY TIME (CA Code R26) or EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY (R8-4) signs may be installed on freeways which have full control of access and no crossing at grade to inform traffic that stopping, parking or leaving of any vehicle upon a freeway is prohibited."

OR...

II) that you found it necessary to stop due to the fact that you were tired and in an effort to avoid injury or damage to persons or property (as per sub-paragraph (a)(1) above), but that will depend on the court's interpretation of "When necessary to avoid injury or damage to persons or property". In other words, you could easily have driven past the off ramp and onto a surface road/street or to a parking lot nearby.

Your best shot at finding what/how the officer will testify at the TDN would be to contact the court and request a copy of his TBD declaration, as it is highly likely that his in court testimony will mimic what he may have written in his declaration.

Good luck!

[adam_]

It is possible that the officer will testify that you were illegally parked in violation of the "NO PARKING ANYTIME" or "EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY" signage/restriction pursuant to CVC 21718(a). If that is the case, then your argument that "21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500)" will not get you very far in light of the fact that 21718(a) is not part of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).
!

Thanks.

Pending receipt of the TR235 at present.

Had not seen 21718... somewhat interesting.

I am charged with failure to obey a regulatory sign. 21718 does not actual refer to any signage.

21718 may be the actual violation, but there is no signage involved in 21718. (as written it prohibits parking on a freeway, and the MUTCD describes signage that is appropriate to enforce CVC21718.)

Once you start looking for a basis for the 21461 violation you must find an underlying sign as defined in the MUTCD (or cal supplement), correct? (Ie sign, marking, etc)

I may be guilty of 21718(a) violation- in which case that should be the charge- or even guilty of a 22505(b) parking violation.... but to say I am guilty of disobeying a sign, on the basis of a code section that prohibits parking independently of any signage -seems inappropriate.

My argument would be that 21718 does not address signage. The authority to place and prohibit parking is solely in Chapter 9. Since I was charged with failure to obey signage, the only operative section is 22500 onwards.


Thanks much for your input- much appreciated.

A

[That Guy]

"EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY (R8-4)" IS a regulatory sign and it IS listed as such in the CA supplement under Table 2B-101. List of California Regulatory Signs (Sheet 3 of 7) (Page 2B-4).

As for your suggestion that 21718 does not refer to any signage, neither does 22349(a) "driving in excess of the 65 mph speed limit" and yet, theoretically, you can be cited for 21461(a) if you were driving in excess of the 65mph speed limit by virtue of the fact that a "Speed Limit 65mph" sign is a regulatory sign. Same analogy applies here.

I am not suggesting that you have not presented a reasonable set of arguments here. I am merely preparing you for what the officer may present as his justification for issuing the citation. Ultimately, the decision is up to the trier of fact (judge/commissioner).

So get a copy of the officer's declaration and let us know what it says... and go from there.

[adam_]

"EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY (R8-4)" IS a regulatory sign and it IS listed as such in the CA supplement under Table 2B-101. List of California Regulatory Signs (Sheet 3 of 7) (Page 2B-4).

As for your suggestion that 21718 does not refer to any signage, neither does 22349(a) "driving in excess of the 65 mph speed limit" and yet, theoretically, you can be cited for 21461(a) if you were driving in excess of the 65mph speed limit by virtue of the fact that a "Speed Limit 65mph" sign is a regulatory sign. Same analogy applies here.

I am not suggesting that you have not presented a reasonable set of arguments here. I am merely preparing you for what the officer may present as his justification for issuing the citation. Ultimately, the decision is up to the trier of fact (judge/commissioner).

So get a copy of the officer's declaration and let us know what it says... and go from there.

Court clerk isn't cooperative. Any suggestion?

Can I force them to get me the document?

Thx!

[That Guy]

Court clerk isn't cooperative. Any suggestion?

Can I force them to get me the document?

Thx!

If by "document" you mean the officer's declaration, and aside from asking to speak to a supervisor or requesting to view the case file, I am not sure what you can do to force them. Its a criminal matter and the case file is indeed public record. Although it seems that, recently, the courts have been less than cooperative with providing the information. Personally, I have not ever had a problem.

[adam_]

"EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY (R8-4)" IS a regulatory sign and it IS listed as such in the CA supplement under Table 2B-101. List of California Regulatory Signs (Sheet 3 of 7) (Page 2B-4).

Both signs are considered "R8 Series" signs under Cal MUTCD, and under section 2B.39 it states that support for these signs are as follows:

Section 2B.39 Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series)
Support:
Signs governing the parking, stopping, and standing of vehicles cover a wide variety of regulations, and only general guidance can be provided here. The word “standing” when used on the R7 and R8 series of signs refers to the practice of a driver keeping the vehicle in a stationary position while continuing to occupy the vehicle. Typical examples of parking, stopping, and standing signs (see Figures 2B-16, 2B-16(CA) and 2B-17) are as follows:
A. NO PARKING ANY TIME (R7-1);
B. NO PARKING 8:30 AM TO 5:30 PM (R7-2);
C. NO PARKING EXCEPT SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS (R7-3);
D. NO STANDING ANY TIME (R7-4);
E. ONE HOUR PARKING 9 AM-7 PM (R7-5);
F. NO PARKING LOADING ZONE (R7-6);
G. NO PARKING BUS STOP (R7-7, R7-107, R7-107a);
H. RESERVED PARKING for persons with disabilities (R7-8);
I. NO PARKING ON PAVEMENT (R8-1);
J. NO PARKING EXCEPT ON SHOULDER (R8-2);
K. NO PARKING (R8-3);
L. No Parking (R8-3a); and
M. NO STOPPING ON PAVEMENT (R8-5).
Support:
Refer to CVC 22500 through 22522 for Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs.

These signs seem to fall under the "section 22000 onwards" exclusion of 21461(b)...

Anyway, Court has refused to provide the officers TBD.... case is tomorrow AM.


As for the analogy, I think it may be flawed, since 21461(b) explicitly excludes any parking violation... without that section (section b) your analogy would hold. (that exceeding a posted speed limit is failing to obey a regulatory sign.)

We'll see, getting my notes together...

[That Guy]

[I]Section 2B.39 Parking, Standing, and Stopping Signs (R7 and R8 Series)
Support:
Signs governing the parking, stopping, and standing of vehicles cover a wide variety of regulations, and only general guidance can be provided here. The word “standing” when used on the R7 and R8 series of signs refers to the practice of a driver keeping the vehicle in a stationary position while continuing to occupy the vehicle. Typical examples of parking, stopping, and standing signs (see Figures 2B-16, 2B-16(CA) and 2B-17) are as follows:
A. NO PARKING ANY TIME (R7-1);
B. NO PARKING 8:30 AM TO 5:30 PM (R7-2);
C. NO PARKING EXCEPT SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS (R7-3);
D. NO STANDING ANY TIME (R7-4);
E. ONE HOUR PARKING 9 AM-7 PM (R7-5);
F. NO PARKING LOADING ZONE (R7-6);
G. NO PARKING BUS STOP (R7-7, R7-107, R7-107a);
H. RESERVED PARKING for persons with disabilities (R7-8);
I. NO PARKING ON PAVEMENT (R8-1);
J. NO PARKING EXCEPT ON SHOULDER (R8-2);
K. NO PARKING (R8-3);
L. No Parking (R8-3a); and
M. NO STOPPING ON PAVEMENT (R8-5).

I don't see "EMERGENCY PARKING ONLY" sign anywhere in that list!

Support:
Refer to CVC 22500 through 22522 for Parking, Standing, and Stopping signs.

Precisely... 21781 does not fall between 22500 and 22522...

As for the analogy, I think it may be flawed, since 21461(b) explicitly excludes any parking violation...

Actually, 21461(b) makes no specific mention of "any parking violations". Instead, it excludes (and I quote) "acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500)". I don't see any reference to "any" or to "parking violations" in there.

You're free to make whatever argument you feel will get you out of the ticket. My analogy was a mere guess as to how the officer may testify... I realize that it may not have been what you wanted to hear but to argue that it is flawed when it clearly is not... You're only fooling yourself!

Assuming the officer does, in fact, use the same analogy that I suggested, the ultimate decision as to whether it is flawed or not is up to the judge.

I am not saying you will lose, I am simply saying that it is likely that the officer is aware of what exclusions are listed under 21461(b). And frankly, shame on him if he is not!

(that exceeding a posted speed limit is failing to obey a regulatory sign.)

And so is a violation of 21461(a)... So is a violation of 21781, which, again, is NOT excluded per the language of 21461(b) in that it is not part of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

We'll see, getting my notes together...

Best of luck to you... And, please, let us know how it all works out!

[adam_]

Sorry for the delay in posting- it was not my doing. Taken 'under advisement'.

I've JUST received the courts decision. NOT guilty.

Background:
This court is blatantly 'pro law enforcement'. I sat through 9 cases in which the 'judge' took considerable care to elicit testimony from LEOs in order to cement his findings. Anything an LEO said was true, any testimony from the accused was dismissed. (Of course morons defending themselves were no help)...Two attorneys I spoke to agreed with this assessment of this particular court.

I presented my argument(s). The judge said 'I see no defense of necessity', deciding that where I parked (on a deserted off ramp over 6 feet from the traffic lane with nobody having passed over it during the entire time we were there) was still a 'hazardous location'.

However the officer testified that I was parked at a "Emergency Parking Only" sign. Despite photographs that showed no parking signs, he said he cited me for being parked at the emergency sign.

I entered the MUTCD Figure 2B-17 which lists this sign as an "R 8 series" sign. I read the section of the MUTCD which (2B39) which describes the authority to place no parkign signs and states these are '22500 series' in the CVC.

Judge was not happy at the end, and said he wanted to take this under advisement. He promised a response "next week". In actual fact he took three weeks.

A short decision:

"Officer testified that I parked at an Emergency Parkign Sign"

"Mr Adam testified that he did not deny parking, but that this is not a violation of 21461(a)."

The decision goes on to state that "CVC 21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting a violation under CVC 22500-22526..... Mr. Adam violated 22505(b) but did not violate 21461(a) and is therefore not guilty".

Notwithstanding the moderators relocating this thread to a Parking Ticket Forum even thought it was cited as a moving violation of 21461(a), I do thank those that have posted their thoughts.

A

PS What is very interesting it this- my TBD was precisely this same argument- 9 pages, cross referencing the VC and MUTCD- yet this same judge found me guilty! It points out, IMHO, that many courts ignore the TBD and just rubber stamp every one guilty....