Rolling Through Stop Sign Citation, VC 22450

[Loren]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California. I had driven this same route earlier that morning and noticed the officer staged and ready to get cars running the stop signs. I was fine for that time. Then later in the day, I drove the same route in the same manner. I stopped my vehicle behind the limit line of a T-Intersection Stop Sign to make, what can be considered a blind left turn. I waited a few seconds and proceeded into my left turn slowly and cautiously. I continued my way down the street, when I noticed the officer made a U-Turn and turned his lights on me for me to pull over. He said I did not make a complete stop. I told him that I had and that from his vantage point of being staged about one car length from the intersection, he may not have seen my car behind the limit line due to lack of view and that he probably saw me start into the intersection cautiously making him think i was rolling. He would not have any of my discussion. I will be able to take photos of the scene from the officer's position and from my position behind the limit line. Do you have any other suggestions? I am eligible for Traffic School (not had a citation for over 30 years); but feel I am in the right, I made a complete stop. What if I go to trial and the officer shows and I lose the case, may i still request Traffic School? Thank you in advance for your suggestions and input.

[That Guy]

I will be able to take photos of the scene from the officer's position and from my position behind the limit line.

Pictures are always a good idea... Make sure at least one of the pictures shows the street name signs as a way to link those pictures to the location of the alleged violation.

That being said, and in looking at your thread title: "Vc 22450 Rolling Through Stop Sign Citation" (and assuming that this is what is stated on your citation), it is likely that the officer may testify the you didn't stop at all -only slowed down/rolled through the stop-, at which point in time your argument as to whether he could see the limit line or not, may becomes a moot issue!

What if I go to trial and the officer shows and I lose the case, may i still request Traffic School?

You certainly may request it. however, the judge is not obligated to grant your request nor is he required to state -on the record- a reason for his refusal. I am not saying you won't be allowed it after a trial... I am only saying that there have been instances where the request was denied.

Good luck!

[adam_]

That being said, and in looking at your thread title: "Vc 22450 Rolling Through Stop Sign Citation" (and assuming that this is what is stated on your citation), it is likely that the officer may testify the you didn't stop at all -only slowed down/rolled through the stop-, at which point in time your argument as to whether he could see the limit line or not, may becomes a moot issue!
!

If the OP can show the officer could not see the limit line, why would that be moot?

Based on the VC, it is essential for the officer to establish a failure to stop AT the limit line.

22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.

If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway .

(b) The driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign at a railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local authority may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution providing for the placement of a stop sign at any location on a highway under its jurisdiction where the stop sign would enhance traffic safety.

Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 630, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 20

[cdwjava]

If the OP can show the officer could not see the limit line, why would that be moot?

Based on the VC, it is essential for the officer to establish a failure to stop AT the limit line.

It is not difficult to watch as a driver fails to stop. Even if I cannot see the limit line, if I do see the vehicle continue to move and NEVER come to a complete stop, I can make the case that 22450 was not complied with.

It really is quite easy to watch someone do a "California stop."

If the officer testifies that the OP did, indeed, come to a complete stop but it was AFTER the limit line, then the issue of observing the line - or knowing it's proximity based upon some landmark - would be relevant. But, if the officer testifies to observing the OP roll on through without ever coming to a complete stop, then the issue of the line is not so important.

Now, the OP might be able to try and argue that the officer did not have complete eyes on him the entire time and, perhaps, he missed the fact that the OP stopped before the line as required and THEN proceeded on, slowly and carefully so as to observe traffic.

Much may depend on what the officer's notes say as to what he observed.

[That Guy]

If the OP can show the officer could not see the limit line, why would that be moot?

Based on the VC, it is essential for the officer to establish a failure to stop AT the limit line.

And don't you think that the officer is aware of what the elements of the offense are and what he has to prove?

To answer your question, because rolling through a stop (depending on how the officer words his testimony) might suggest that the vehicle never stopped; only that it approached, slowed down, rolled through the stop and continued through the intersection. So if the vehicle never stopped before, at or after the limit line, the location the limit line and whether it can be viewed from the officer's location is a moot issue!

[adam_]

Can you cannot possibly conceive of a situation in which the officer makes a mistake?

The OP saw they cop monitoring the stop, he scrupulosuly avoids a rolling stop, he does precisely what he should....

If the officer could not see the car at the line, you can be sure he will 'shade the truth' (or as you say "make a case that 22450 was not complied with") even though he may wrongfully be convicting an innocent driver.

But hey, he probably broke some other law and deserves it, right?

The distinction is that the OP may have to prove the officer missed his stop- and not actually prove the offcer cannot testify as to all elemtnets of the violation.


t

It is not difficult to watch as a driver fails to stop. Even if I cannot see the limit line, if I do see the vehicle continue to move and NEVER come to a complete stop, I can make the case that 22450 was not complied with.

It really is quite easy to watch someone do a "California stop."

If the officer testifies that the OP did, indeed, come to a complete stop but it was AFTER the limit line, then the issue of observing the line - or knowing it's proximity based upon some landmark - would be relevant. But, if the officer testifies to observing the OP roll on through without ever coming to a complete stop, then the issue of the line is not so important.

Now, the OP might be able to try and argue that the officer did not have complete eyes on him the entire time and, perhaps, he missed the fact that the OP stopped before the line as required and THEN proceeded on, slowly and carefully so as to observe traffic.

Much may depend on what the officer's notes say as to what he observed.

That guy- I am utterly convinced the officer will lie and say he saw the line. But we know I am biased.

[cdwjava]

Can you cannot possibly conceive of a situation in which the officer makes a mistake?

As I pointed out in my reply, yes. I can conceive of the possibility that the officer made a mistake in his observation.

The OP saw they cop monitoring the stop, he scrupulosuly avoids a rolling stop, he does precisely what he should....

From his perspective, perhaps he believes that to be the case.

If the officer could not see the car at the line, you can be sure he will 'shade the truth' (or as you say "make a case that 22450 was not complied with") even though he may wrongfully be convicting an innocent driver.

Of course ... because all officers lie so that they can get a toaster at the end of the month when they get the most convictions.

But hey, he probably broke some other law and deserves it, right?

Please point out where I have ever made any such comment on this or any other forum. I'll wait ...

That guy- I am utterly convinced the officer will lie and say he saw the line. But we know I am biased.

And more than a little cynical and jaded.

[That Guy]

That guy- I am utterly convinced the officer will lie and say he saw the line.

Whether he will lie or tell the truth is on him... Question is why would he lie and what benefit might he reap by doing so???

Conversely, what "I" am utterly convinced of is that there is not a shortage of violators out there. So to suggest that officers (in general) are intentionally targeting "innocent" drivers, issue citations, going through the trouble of appearing in court ALL "based on a bunch of lies"... Meh... That is a HUGE stretch!

BTW, I mean no disrespect or any negative inference towards the OP.

But we know I am biased.

With all due respect, "biased" is an UNDER statement!!!