Violation of Right Turn Only Sign, VC 21461(A) Citation

[bwcondie]

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

Shortly after I dropped off my kids at their elementary school, I turned left onto a typical 2 lane residential road from the school’s parking lot. To my surprise, I get pulled over by Officer Friendly. He claims that I violated the “Right Turn Only” sign. I claimed at the time that I didn’t see/notice the sign. Unfortunately, I drove off with a 21461(a) citation.
I wanted to bounce off a few ideas.
1) I should not have received a 21461(a) violation. This carries a big fine plus one point on my record. I figure that since the public school is public property then I believe I should have received a citation for 38300.
a. Can the judge just say, okay you’re guilty of 38300 right away or does the prosecution need to reissue the citation and reschedule the trial?
21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
38300. It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to disobey any sign, signal, or traffic control device placed or maintained pursuant to Section 38280.
38280. Federal, state, or local authorities having jurisdiction over public lands may place or cause to be placed and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals and other traffic control devices as may be necessary to properly indicate and carry out any provision of law or any duly adopted regulation of such governmental authority or to warn or guide traffic.
2) It annoys me that the traffic officer is considered the “prosecution” and not just a “witness” in California. I was planning on attempting to set up a meeting with my “prosecutor” at the local police department to negotiate a plea deal. I’m assuming that I’ll get laughed out of the police station. I’ll document this attempt. When the trial starts, I’ll ask that the judge drop the case since there is no “prosecutor” and whine about the disparity I heard a few days earlier.
3) I noticed that the sign is written in words, “Right Turn Only.” This sign does not appear to exist in the latest MUTCD. On table 1-102(CA), it does reference a R41(CA) “Right Turn Only” as being obsolete with no target compliance date. This sign has been replaced with a R3-5R, arrow pointing right with an “ONLY” underneath. Naturally, I feel that I have the right to determine if the sign is legitimate. Are the words the correct size & position according to the state of California? I was unable to find a descriptive drawing of the sign. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm
So…am I not-guilty or should I just take traffic school?

[HonkingAntelope]

VC 38300 only applies to offroad vehicles. If you lose the TBD and see the officer show up for TDN, you could try and ask the officer if he would agree to back you up when you ask the judge to amend the ticket to a nonmover. What's the worst that can happen? He can only say no.

# 2), the officer is just a witness, not the prosecutor. With the exception of a few backwater Podunk courts in CA, you won't see anyone from DA's office present unless the charge is a misdemeanor (e.g. DUI, Vehicular MS, Driving while Suspended) rather than an infraction. You'd do well NOT to try to contact the officer unless things get to trian de novo and you see him show up.

# 3), If you're ok with it, post a googlemaps link to the insersection where the alleged violation took place so a couple of people more familiar with MUTCD technicalities can take a look at it and see if you can raise something up.

[bwcondie]

1) Thank you, that saved me some embarrassment.

2) The officer that pulled me over works the first shift and there is no way he will miss a the court date. I figure I have nothing to lose by calling. Also, this PD has an excellent court attendance record (not in my favor, sigh).

3) VC section 21465 - Unauthorized Traffic Devices. This suggests that I have the right to determine if the sign I'm accused of disobeying is legal. I downloaded the 600+ page pdf that details every legal sign in the state of California. I'll ask the officer to point out the sign that I violated. Btw, it isn't there because R41(CA) is obsolete. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm Do I need to print out the whole pdf or can I just submit a memory stick as evidence?

[quirkyquark]

2) The officer that pulled me over works the first shift and there is no way he will miss a the court date. I figure I have nothing to lose by calling. Also, this PD has an excellent court attendance record (not in my favor, sigh).

Calling to negotiate a plea deal? Hahahaha <---- is what the police will say when you ask them!

3) VC section 21465 - Unauthorized Traffic Devices. This suggests that I have the right to determine if the sign I'm accused of disobeying is legal. I downloaded the 600+ page pdf that details every legal sign in the state of California. I'll ask the officer to point out the sign that I violated. Btw, it isn't there because R41(CA) is obsolete. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm

21465 is irrelevant here unless you can show the sign was somehow defective. Old signs with no target compliance dates can remain "until the end of their useful life." By trying to "trick" the police and the court into showing that your sign isn't there in the most recent list, you could be committing legally punishable misconduct.

Why not do what HA recommended, and post the intersection/direction so that those of us who are more familiar with the MUTCD can see if there are any technicalities you may be able to exploit?

[bwcondie]

Quirkyquark,


I figure that one of five options will occur. a) "I'm not a prosecutor", b) Okay, a plea would be fine. You seem to be a pillar of the community, c) Haaaahaaahaaha, d) crickets, e) Autoreply, "I will be out of the office until...." Since I have no pride, no sweat here.



I figure, if the sign doesn't exist in the California database then there is reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the sign. How do you see misconduct? I can state beforehand that I couldn't find the sign in the database if that helps keep me out of jail. Just because I couldn't find it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

Here is the image. The region of interest is the second school parking lot intersection on the vertical road (reference main intersection at top left of image).

http://g.co/maps/paqet

[quirkyquark]

Here is the image. The region of interest is the second school parking lot intersection on the vertical road (reference main intersection at top left of image).

Thanks. You can certainly try contacting the cop, it's just that it will probably amount to nothing.



I presume this is the location we're talking about. The sign is under the red dot; it's inside the school driveway, so no head-on view. You can certainly try your argument, but here's how I would go about fighting this (which refines your argument, in part )

---

VC 22101 would have been the better section to cite you with, but it's VC 21461 so let's start with that. Breaking it up into easily digestible chunks:

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle

1. to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory
   
   • in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
   • or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance,
2. or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

Your first argument is: Show me where in the federal MUTCD or the DOT supplement (i.e., CA MUTCD) is this "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign?

Now, you and I may know that it was last defined as regulatory in the 1996 Traffic Manual (see PDF page 72), but that's irrelevant since 21461(a) clearly states Federal MUTCD OR Caltrans supplement to Federal MUTCD. Since California first adopted the Federal MUTCD on May 20, 2004, the 1996 Traffic Manual cannot be a "supplement" to that. The actual supplement to that first 2003 MUTCD does NOT contain the R41 sign.

---

Your second argument is OK, not in the MUTCD. What's the proof that it was erected by "lawful authority of a public body or official"?

To win, odd as it seems, YOU better show there's no proof (if you ask the officer, he'll just say something like "oh, it's been here for 20 years and I've been giving tickets for 10 years" and the judge will accept it). To do this, you send a public records request to the city hall clerk, asking for all documents related to installation of the "right turn only" sign on the parking lot exit of XYZ Elementary School; if you get proof, it doesn't matter (see argument 3) -- if you get a letter saying NO DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE, you can use that as proof that the sign was not properly erected.

---

Your third argument is (this is a common legal tactic to drive the last nail in the coffin when you are in a very strong position): OK, let's assume that the sign is somehow justified. Even so, it is placed illegally; it is unauthorized (VC 21465) and I have no obligation to obey it.

Here's the reasoning. The 1996 Traffic Manual, where this sign last existed as a regulatory sign, says:

RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN
The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory.

The, umm, "junction" where the sign is installed is NOT an intersection.

The Vehicle Code defines intersection as:

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

Since the 2006 edition, the CA MUTCD however has defined intersection by including the above definition and then stating this exception:

(b) the junction of an alley or driveway with a roadway or highway shall not constitute an intersection.

The sign is not applicable and cannot be legally enforced.

---

You may come across MUTCD-deniers (who believe the MUTCD does not have the effect of law), or some may say "well, the above may be true after 2006, but this sign was installed way before then." In that case, we use the following to show that that location has never been an intersection depending solely on the definitions in the Vehicle Code:

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

530. A "roadway" is that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.

A roadway thus cannot exist without an underlying highway. And the "road" where that sign is is NOT a highway, because a parking lot is not a "way or place...for purposes of vehicular travel"; it's for the opposite, call it 'vehicular storage.' Vehicles traveling on the street do not use that parking lot route as, say, another lane unless their purpose is picking up/dropping off/parking (and not vehicular travel).

---

Needless to say, these arguments are best made in a TBD. And oh, the other red dot in the picture shows broken yellow lines, which you can cross. The solid white line is not regulatory. These are the only two other "signs and signals" that the 21461a could refer to, if not the sign (or in addition to it).

Edit:I said 21461 was easier to defend ('beat') than the narrower 22101 because 22101 just says "official traffic control device" without referring to MUTCD, etc.; so, if it was 22101, you would be left with only the third argument which is harder to argue on its own.

[That Guy]

I figure, if the sign doesn't exist in the California database then there is reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the sign.

The sign DOES exist in the California data base.

A list of the "current" collection of signs that are "currently" approved and used for "new" installation is NOT representative of ALL the signs that are still in use that may have been approved for use in previous versions of the CA supplement to the MUTCD.

How do you see misconduct?

To stand in court and declare that a sign does not exist when in fact it clearly does, or that is has been deleted and is "obsolete" when it clearly isn't, is most certainly NOT the position you want to find yourself in at a time when the court's "sympathy" is, or should be the ultimate goal here!

So while you might not see it as misconduct, you have to at least have a clue that it might be construed as an attempt to mislead the judge into a misunderstanding that will benefit you. Your intent is obvious, and the results might vary from court to court. But is it worth the risk?

Well, you've already stated that you "have no pride" so maybe to you, it is worth it!

I can state beforehand that I couldn't find the sign in the database if that helps keep me out of jail.

And just like you can state that you didn't see the sign when you made that left turn, does not mean it is not there. As a result, you are put in a position where you have to defend your actions on that date.

Just because I couldn't find it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

Ignorance is bliss... Sometimes! But understand that it not likely to get you out of your citation. Anyone with extremely limited knowlege of the MUTCD would know that your mere reference to that sign by R41(CA) (its MUTCD reference number) might conclude some sort of connection. And a review of the current version would result in finding that an R41(CA) sign is on Table I-102(CA) Deleted California Signs - No Target Compliance Dates. The rest including the following short and brief yet clear and easy to understand statement from the CA MUTCD are self explanatory:

The signs listed in Table I-102(CA) are old California signs that have been deleted for application in the past. These signs are non-compliant per this California MUTCD but do not have any specific target compliance dates. Hence, any such signs on existing highways and bikeways can remain in service through the end of their useful service life.

What you're proclaiming here is merely a "guilty with explanation" plea, which, if you choose to make it at the arraignment, it might earn you a fine reduction (the amount, if any, will depend on the judge) and the opportunity to take traffic school to avoid the violation point. Alternatively, you can try your luck at a TBD and/or a TBD & TDN in case the office will not appear or submit a declaration, but understand that the fine reduction and eligibility for traffic school may be diminished accordingly once those choices are made.

The choice is yours.

[bwcondie]

I bet seldom to people respond on the results after the court date.

I spoke with the officer before the trial.
a) He stated that he is a witness and does not have authority to do plea deals.
b) I requested that the case be dismissed due to lack of prosecution. (Unfortunately, the judge required that I make a not guilty plea before I could make the motion...there goes traffic school option.) The officer admitted that he is a witness and not a prosecutor.

I tried these two arguments.
1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.
2) "Right Turn Only" sign is not listed in MUTCD. Nor is it listed in the california sign list.

I was convicted. Is it worth it to appeal or let it go knowing that the City and County lost money on my citation...the trial was one hour long. 1 judge, 1 officer on OT (4 hour OT min), 2 deputies, 1 court interpreter (not used but she had to stay) and 1 clerk.

[quirkyquark]

I bet seldom to people respond on the results after the court date.

Most don't, thanks for coming back!

1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.

I was convicted. Is it worth it to appeal or let it go knowing that the City and County lost money on my citation...the trial was one hour long. 1 judge, 1 officer on OT (4 hour OT min), 2 deputies, 1 court interpreter (not used but she had to stay) and 1 clerk.

I would appeal, but that's me. It's mostly mail/paperwork, and all it takes is time. Was the trial electronically recorded? Ask the clerk asap. If not, make detailed notes while your memory is still fresh about what went on at trial-- you'll need it for the appeal.

[flyingron]

1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.

Such an admonition isn't really of any merit. In fact, the officer and you are both wrong on this. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street. The driveway of the public school is a highway

What grounds do you have for appeal? This isn't a de novo at this point. You'll have to make a point of law which you haven't expressed here and I fail to notice.