Got Cited on Freeway by City Cop Out of City Limits

[edjusted]

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

I got pulled over today after a peace officer almost rear ended me. Then I got cited for following too close and less than 100 feet from the vehicle in front of me.

First off this was rush hour in Los Angeles traffic. 90% of the folks are less than 100 feet away from each other!

Ticket states conditions were: Weather: Overcast Road: Dry Traffic: Heavy

He was following me too close and when I down shifted in traffic he had to break suddenly and then he puts his lights on and starts spouting off all of this following too close nonsense. I understand that 3 seconds following distance is the rule as far as I can remember. He writes me up on 2 infractions 22107 100' feet following distance and 21703 Follow too close. Then he tells me that he's giving me a break for my brake lights since he said they aren't working when indeed they are operational.

This was a city cop outside of his city citing me on the freeway that wasn't even running through his city when the alleged violations occurred.

I'm going to fight this... Do you think I can even make a case of it?

[jk]

and the rest of the story is? (you asked no question)


It sounds like you downshifted to intentionally cause the cop to not be warned of you slowing. You might want to read the law on signalling required when slowing or stopping.

[edjusted]

Oops, Accidentally posted when trying to write a new line... Everything's there now. I had sufficient space in front of me. He was on right on my tail when I slowed down.

[jk]

Then he tells me that he's giving me a break for my brake lights since he said they aren't working when indeed they are operational.

feel blessed. If he believed your lights weren't working, it likely saved you from another ticket or two. If he thought you had intentionally down shifted to slow down because you knew your brake lights wouldn't alert the cop to you slowing down, it could have gotten ugly.

22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.

did you change lanes? If not, I don't see how that is applicable

21703. The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another
vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due
regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the
condition of, the roadway.

the argument to that is; what determines reasonable and prudent. Since you hit nobody, you were by that, not following too closely. There is nothing specifying any particular distance so the "less than 100'" does not mean you were breaking the law.

You are guilty of this though:

22109. No person shall stop or suddenly decrease the speed of a
vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in
the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any vehicle
immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give the signal.

the only thing I can find that speaks of a 100' distance is this:

21705. Motor vehicles being driven outside of a business or
residence district in a caravan or motorcade, whether or not towing
other vehicles, shall be so operated as to allow sufficient space and
in no event less than 100 feet between each vehicle or combination
of vehicles so as to enable any other vehicle to overtake or pass.

the point I see of that law, in your situation, is that apparently the 100' minimum is required for special reasons (caravan or motorcade) and as such, would suggest that being less than 100' is not improper in other circumstances.

If the cop was following closer to you than you were to the car in front, that alone should give a valid defense that you were not too close to be considered reasonable and prudent since the cop apparently felt he was not too close at the distance he was following.

[BOR]

This was a city cop outside of his city citing me on the freeway that wasn't even running through his city when the alleged violations occurred.

jk has covered the mechanics. To answer the quote here though, a CA officer has statewide traffic jurisdiction as well as criminal (I believe).

I live in Ohio, officers here also have statewide traffic jurisdiction per the OSC, but not necessarily criminal, as a state to state comparison.

[cdwjava]

He was following me too close and when I down shifted in traffic he had to break suddenly and then he puts his lights on and starts spouting off all of this following too close nonsense. I understand that 3 seconds following distance is the rule as far as I can remember. He writes me up on 2 infractions 22107 100' feet following distance and 21703 Follow too close.

Apparently he cited you for an unsafe turning movement on the highway. It appears that at some point he saw you change lanes or make some other movement that he believes you did not do safely or with a proper signal. Likewise, he believed you were following too close to the vehicle in front of you. Unfortunately, that's an easy one to make and far too many people follow too closely - especially in Los Angeles.

This was a city cop outside of his city citing me on the freeway that wasn't even running through his city when the alleged violations occurred.

If he was an officer in the same county, then he is certainly good. if he was from out of the county he would have had to call an officer from a local jurisdiction to write the citation, but would still have the ability to detain and arrest for public offenses committed in his presence.

I'm going to fight this... Do you think I can even make a case of it?

The 22107, maybe ... if you did not make any turning movements at any time prior to the stop. The following too close, not so likely.

How fast were you going, and how far were you behind the car in front of you?