Failure to Obey "Do Not Enter" Sign

[Snorfle]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Washington

Hello all,

This is a weird one. I moved in March to a house that is near a north-south highway in Seattle (HWY 99). You can turn east off the highway to a residential 2-way street that is one possible way into my neighborhood. When I moved in March, we took that road and parked the U-haul there. I've gone down the street many times.

Now when I moved in, there were no Do Not Enter signs there at all. Over the intervening months, I have seen 2 Do Not Enter signs there (not directly where the highway and street intersect, mind you, on the next block after that), but they were facing north and south (which makes sense because the north-south road on that block are both one way going opposite ways from that intersection...sorry if that's confusing). Sometimes the signs were there and sometimes they weren't. Sometimes they were facing diagonally. Twice over the past 3 months, I've seen them facing west (which would prevent you from going more than one block east up that street from the highway). But most of the time, if they're there at all, they face north and south (i.e. one faces north, the other faces south).

So yesterday I turned east off the highway and saw the signs facing west. I was confused but went past the signs and bam, a cop rolled out from a parking spot and issued a $124 ticket. I tried to explain that sometimes the signs weren't there, and that they most often face in other directions so I was never sure what to think but he wasn't having any of it. He did say something about how people remove or mess with the signs all the time but that "they're here now".

I think this is completely unfair and told him so. I'm trying to decide if I should do a mitigation hearing or a contested hearing. I know there's some kind of pre-hearing conference for the contested one. Just not sure if my (true) story is too convoluted or would even help, since I did technically commit what I'm being accused of.

(And of course I'm driving by there every day to snap a picture if I see the signs gone or facing a different way!)

Thanks in advance for any help you guys can provide!

[flyingron]

So you KNEW the signs were there but that they were frequently vandalized but you figured it was OK? You don't say anything about whether they were there at the time of infraction?

Sounds like you have little defense.

[Snorfle]

So you KNEW the signs were there but that they were frequently vandalized but you figured it was OK? You don't say anything about whether they were there at the time of infraction?

Sounds like you have little defense.

I didn't know they were frequently vandalized...that's what the cop told me. I had no idea why they were there or not there. When they were there (about 65% of the time), they were facing North/South all but 3 times, so if anything, I would assume that that's the direction they were supposed to be facing. Additionally, just by the way the streets are set up, that actually makes sense. The way they were facing this time (west) was extremely rare and doesn't even seem to make sense from a traffic perspective.

[That Guy]

I didn't know they were frequently vandalized...that's what the cop told me. I had no idea why they were there or not there. When they were there (about 65% of the time), they were facing North/South all but 3 times, so if anything, I would assume that that's the direction they were supposed to be facing. Additionally, just by the way the streets are set up, that actually makes sense. The way they were facing this time (west) was extremely rare and doesn't even seem to make sense from a traffic perspective.

The fact that the signs are there some times and not there other times is not a plausible defense. So long as the signs meet the standards required for your state (you can check your state's Manual on Uniform traffic Control Devices) and as long as the signs were visible to the driver (as in "not obstructed"), and are facing in the direction they were posted to face, you are obligated to follow their direction. Here is what I mean:

So yesterday I turned east off the highway and saw the signs facing west. I was confused but went past the signs and bam, a cop rolled out from a parking spot and issued a $124 ticket.

You don't get to choose when to follow them and when to ignore them.

You can contact the city's planning department to establish which direction those sign were supposed to be facing and what action they prohibited. If those signs were facing in a westerly direction, to prohibit movement in an easterly direction, then you did indeed violate the elements of the offense with which you were charged. If not, then you can contest the citation and provide a copy of the engineering report to support your claim.

While you are there, you can complain to them that someone is vandalizing/turning the signs around...

[Snorfle]

The fact that the signs are there some times and not there other times is not a plausible defense. So long as the signs meet the standards required for your state (you can check your state's Manual on Uniform traffic Control Devices) and as long as the signs were visible to the driver (as in "not obstructed"), and are facing in the direction they were posted to face, you are obligated to follow their direction. Here is what I mean:

You don't get to choose when to follow them and when to ignore them.

You can contact the city's planning department to establish which direction those sign were supposed to be facing and what action they prohibited. If those signs were facing in a westerly direction, to prohibit movement in an easterly direction, then you did indeed violate the elements of the offense with which you were charged. If not, then you can contest the citation and provide a copy of the engineering report to support your claim.

While you are there, you can complain to them that someone is vandalizing/turning the signs around...

I guess my confusion comes from how I should know which signs I'm supposed to follow. Basically you're saying that if someone turns the signs a certain way on a certain day, even if I'm relatively positive that's not the correct direction they should be facing, I should just obey the sign the way it is positioned that day. (I don't mean that to sound argumentative or snarky, I'm honestly asking.)

I may call the city planning dept as you suggested. At the very least, I am going to a mitigation hearing because my opinion is that I had probable reason to think that the signs were not correctly positioned when I went through them this past weekend (and I'm literally talking about 2 or 3 times facing west vs 300 times facing north-south).

[That Guy]

I guess my confusion comes from how I should know which signs I'm supposed to follow. Basically you're saying that if someone turns the signs a certain way on a certain day, even if I'm relatively positive that's not the correct direction they should be facing, I should just obey the sign the way it is positioned that day. (I don't mean that to sound argumentative or snarky, I'm honestly asking.)

No... What I'm saying is that for you to simply walk into court claiming that the signs face in different direction on different days without providing the court with some sort of validation for your claim is not likely to get you anywhere.

Furthermore, you have to understand that if the officer is able to support his contention that the sign was facing in the direction which it was intended to face, that he witnessed you violating the direction of the sign, then he has met the burden of proving that the violation did in fact occur.

Also, and while I am not arguing that a sign facing one direction on one day and another direction on another day is not confusing... What I am saying is that rather than being confused for over 3 months, I would have picked up my phone, called the city planning dept and not only reported the problem but more importantly, I would have inquired as to which direction the sign should face. But that's just me! For all we know, maybe the officer is wrong and you are right in assuming that those signs should indeed face north or south rather than west!!! And the only way to find out for sure would be to get a copy of the engineering report for that intersection.

I may call the city planning dept as you suggested.

You might even want to ask them whether they have any reports of those signs being vandalized/turned and if they made any service calls in the past 3 months... That would be a great way to support your claim that the signs were facing different direction on different occasions.

Now that I think about it, most, if not all, of the signs I see posted in my neck of the woods are posted on square peg type posts rather than round ones... I guess that would make it impossible for someone to turn a sign in a different direction...

Back to your original post for a minute...

(not directly where the highway and street intersect, mind you, on the next block after that), but they were facing north and south (which makes sense because the north-south road on that block are both one way going opposite ways from that intersection...sorry if that's confusing)

Yes, that is confusing... I am curious to see the placement of the signs.. So if you can, please post a Google-Maps link to the intersection in question... The placement of the sign(s) (whether they are placed at the north and south corners of the intersection ( = prohibiting movement in easterly direction) versus being posted on the east and west corners ( = prohibiting movement in the north/south direction) may be indicative of the proper intended direction those signs are supposed to face!

[Snorfle]

No... What I'm saying is that for you to simply walk into court claiming that the signs face in different direction on different days without providing the court with some sort of validation for your claim is not likely to get you anywhere.

Furthermore, you have to understand that if the officer is able to support his contention that the sign was facing in the direction which it was intended to face, that he witnessed you violating the direction of the sign, then he has met the burden of proving that the violation did in fact occur.

That's the main thing I'm worried about and why I am strongly leaning towards the "mitigation" option, where I "will be deemed to have committed the infraction" according to the notice I've got.

Also, and while I am not arguing that a sign facing one direction on one day and another direction on another day is not confusing... What I am saying is that rather than being confused for over 3 months, I would have picked up my phone, called the city planning dept and not only reported the problem but more importantly, I would have inquired as to which direction the sign should face. But that's just me! For all we know, maybe the officer is wrong and you are right in assuming that those signs should indeed face north or south rather than west!!! And the only way to find out for sure would be to get a copy of the engineering report for that intersection.

You might even want to ask them whether they have any reports of those signs being vandalized/turned and if they made any service calls in the past 3 months... That would be a great way to support your claim that the signs were facing different direction on different occasions.

Now that I think about it, most, if not all, of the signs I see posted in my neck of the woods are posted on square peg type posts rather than round ones... I guess that would make it impossible for someone to turn a sign in a different direction...

Back to your original post for a minute...

Yes, that is confusing... I am curious to see the placement of the signs.. So if you can, please post a Google-Maps link to the intersection in question... The placement of the sign(s) (whether they are placed at the north and south corners of the intersection ( = prohibiting movement in easterly direction) versus being posted on the east and west corners ( = prohibiting movement in the north/south direction) may be indicative of the proper intended direction those signs are supposed to face!

I've left a message and so will hopefully find out. However, after looking on Google maps, I *do* see the signs and they are facing west, which doesn't exactly bolster my case. That's really frustrating because I would swear up and down on a stack of bibles that ever since I moved in back in March 2010 (not sure when the Google maps photo was taken) that was not the case except this time and the 2 other times I mentioned. You can see how the west-east street (88th) appears to be one way heading west also, at least on that one block between Nesbit and Midvale (it certainly isn't as you head farther east, and I'm not sure there are any one-way signs anywhere on that road facing west....I'm guessing they just want to prevent traffic coming off the highway).

At this point I'm really wishing I had called ahead of time. I'm hoping they have information about the signs being rotated/vandalized, because the cop mentioned something about it so maybe that's why he was sitting there in the first place (well, that and revenue generating )

[That Guy]

That's the main thing I'm worried about and why I am strongly leaning towards the "mitigation" option, where I "will be deemed to have committed the infraction" according to the notice I've got.

While I am NOT the WA expert on here, it does sound to me like you'd be better off with a "deferral" assuming you do have that option.

However, after looking on Google maps, I *do* see the signs and they are facing west, which doesn't exactly bolster my case.

Judging by the fact that the signs are posted on the north and south corner of 88th st, that is a clear indication that movement in the eastbound direction (the direction running between those signs) is prohibited.

At this point I'm really wishing I had called ahead of time. I'm hoping they have information about the signs being rotated/vandalized, because the cop mentioned something about it so maybe that's why he was sitting there in the first place (well, that and revenue generating )

You allegedly violated the posted signs at a time when they were NOT turned/rotated/vandalized... I can only assume that the officer will testify as such. You want to call that "revenue generating" then so be it...

[Snorfle]

While I am NOT the WA expert on here, it does sound to me like you'd be better off with a "deferral" assuming you do have that option.

I may have that option, but the three checkboxes on the back of the infraction I see are "I admit I committed the infraction and want to pay the penalty", "Mitigation hearing" (as described earlier), & "Contested Hearing" (where I am saying I didn't commit the infraction).

EDIT: Doing some research I see someone has posted about this here and here. I've certainly never requested a deferral before so maybe I'll investigate that further. It would be nice if I could "see" my full driving record, is there any way to request that?

You allegedly violated the posted signs at a time when they were NOT turned/rotated/vandalized... I can only assume that the officer will testify as such. You want to call that "revenue generating" then so be it...

You're assuming the offer would even show up at the Contested hearing to testify, which I have my doubts about... I don't think they even are supposed to be at the Mitigation Hearing at all, though I'm not 100% on that. Additionally, there is a pre-hearing for the "contested" choice, and I don't know if mitigation/deferral is an option there.

[That Guy]

I may have that option, but the three checkboxes on the back of the infraction I see are "I admit I committed the infraction and want to pay the penalty", "Mitigation hearing" (as described earlier), & "Contested Hearing" (where I am saying I didn't commit the infraction).

EDIT: Doing some research I see someone has posted about this here and here. I've certainly never requested a deferral before so maybe I'll investigate that further. It would be nice if I could "see" my full driving record, is there any way to request that?

You can read through this thread Procedural Guide to Traffic Tickets in Washington State and it may answer most if not all your questions. If you have additional questions, post them in this thread and hopefully, some of our Washington experts will chime in and straighten things out for you.

You're assuming the offer would even show up at the Contested hearing to testify, which I have my doubts about... I don't think they even are supposed to be at the Mitigation Hearing at all, though I'm not 100% on that. Additionally, there is a pre-hearing for the "contested" choice, and I don't know if mitigation/deferral is an option there.

And you're assuming that they are required to show up, which from what I understand, and unless you subpoena him, he is not going to be there. They usually file a sworn statement and when I said testify, I meant testify by submitting a sworn/written statement.

Read the thread I linked above and you may find your answer.