Received a Fix-It Ticket but the Court Says Its Not a Correctable Offense

[Tonyabat]

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
I was given a ticket for 9853.2 vc (I was missing one of the numbers on one side of my boat, it fell off) The officer said it was just a fix-it ticket. I did not receive a courtesy notice so I called the Court, The case number on my ticket was wrong (it was for someone speeding on the freeway) I had to call the sheriff's department to get them to correct it and called the court to get an extension while the sheriff's department filed the "notice of correction. The court corrected the case number but now they are saying that the ticket is not correctable and that the fine is $184, I asked for another extension so I could contact the officer to correct the problem, I was denied. I have called the officer at least 5 times over the last month and he is not responding,The officer (a Corporal) did not intend to give me a fine, just a fix-it ticket. I don't want this point on my record,what can be done?

[quirkyquark]

What does your copy of the citation (ticket) say? Is correctable - yes marked? Did you get a copy of the "proof of correction" with a proof of service in the mail? What exactly does it claim to correct?

If your ticket copy has correctable marked, you need to march into court with that and explain to the judge. You may need to plead "not guilty" first and get a trial date. Better yet, do a trial by declaration first.

IF you have enough time left, I would call the commanding officer of the facility where your citing officer is based and let him know (a) your problem (b) his subordinate's behavior and (c) ask what to do. Given even more time, a letter to the commanding officer would work even better.

[Tonyabat]

Thanks for your reply,
Yes the ticket is marked- Eligible for dismissal "yes". Thus I went and had it signed off by a deputy, When I called the court the court told me it was not correctable.
Yes I received a proof of correction notice from the sheriff's department that corrected the case # "only" not the VC.
Is 9853.2 vc a correctable offense?
The ticket does not say I may have a trial by declaration, it offers bail info and correction info, How do I obtain a trial by declaration?
The sheriff's department was not very helpful when I called them the first time, Do I have the right (other than common kindness) to have the Commander respond to me? I have been very polite with my calls and the deputy isn't responding, I trust I will not receive the same treatment from the commander.
I cannot get any more extensions and this is due by the 23rd of this month.

[cdwjava]

Yes the ticket is marked- Eligible for dismissal "yes". Thus I went and had it signed off by a deputy, When I called the court the court told me it was not correctable.

Did the clerk tell you why it was not?

Yes I received a proof of correction notice from the sheriff's department that corrected the case # "only" not the VC.
Is 9853.2 vc a correctable offense?

Here is the section:

9853.2. The owner shall paint on or attach to each side of the
forward half of the vessel the identification number in such manner
as may be prescribed by rules and regulations of the department in
order that it may be clearly visible. Any such rules and regulations
shall be developed in cooperation with the Department of Boating and
Waterways. The number shall be maintained in a legible condition. The
certificate of number shall be pocket size and shall be available at
all times for inspection on the vessel for which issued, whenever
the vessel is in use, except as to those vessels subject to Section
9853.3.

40303.5. Whenever any person is arrested for any of the following
offenses, the arresting officer shall permit the arrested person to
execute a notice containing a promise to correct the violation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 40610 unless the arresting
officer finds that any of the disqualifying conditions specified in
subdivision (b) of Section 40610 exist:
(a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3
(commencing with Section 4000).
(b) Any driver's license infraction set forth in Division 6
(commencing with Section 12500), and subdivision (a) of Section
12951, relating to possession of driver's license.
(c) Section 21201, relating to bicycle equipment.
(d) Any infraction involving equipment set forth in Division 12
(commencing with Section 24000), Division 13 (commencing with Section
29000), Division 14.8 (commencing with Section 34500), Division 16
(commencing with Section 36000), Division 16.5 (commencing with
Section 38000), and Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000).

A citation can be signed off per CVC 40610 (the box on the citation that the officer indicated "Yes" on) only if the violation involves "registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code." It does not appear that a painted hull number falls into any of those categories nor is it mentioned in 40303.5. So, on its face it appears that it is NOT correctable per 40610.

The ticket does not say I may have a trial by declaration, it offers bail info and correction info, How do I obtain a trial by declaration?

Ask the court. You have a limited time in which to request this, so that ship may have sailed.

The sheriff's department was not very helpful when I called them the first time, Do I have the right (other than common kindness) to have the Commander respond to me?

No, you do not have the "right" for him to respond to you.

Plus, understand that the Sheriff's Department has no say in the court's decision NOT to make the violation correctable. You can certainly complain to the court that the deputy's mistake may have prevented you the option of a trial by written declaration, but this is a matter to bring to the court's attention as the Sheriff's Department cannot resolve that.

I cannot get any more extensions and this is due by the 23rd of this month.

What is due? The fine? The TBWD?

[quirkyquark]

A citation can be signed off per CVC 40610 (the box on the citation that the officer indicated "Yes" on) only if the violation involves "registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code."
....
It does not appear that a painted hull number [9853.2] falls into any of those categories nor is it mentioned in 40303.5. So, on its face it appears that it is NOT correctable per 40610.
...
(a) Any registration infraction set forth in Division 3 (commencing with Section 4000).

Actually, VC 9853.2 falls into a chapter called "Registration (Vessels)" under Division 3.5 of the code. [Edit: 3.5 is separate from 3 (see below). It may still be a "registration" requirement under 40610]]

Here are your options, roughly from easy to more difficult:

• If the court is close to you, it may be easiest to solve this in person at the clerk's window. Take all paperwork. Ask for a supervisor if you have to.
• If it's inconvenient, go to the arraignment in person on the 23rd with all paperwork and proof of correction. Explain to the judge. It will most probably be dismissed and you'll owe the $25 fix-it fee.
• If neither of the two are possible, mail in a request for a trial by declaration with full bail (think of it as a refundable deposit). Whatever the ticket says, you have a right to a TBD, certainly for a non-correctable violation. Send it certified, return receipt requested, at least 5 days before the due date.

As Carl said, the sheriff's department may not be able to help. This may just be the clerk passing the ball to the sheriff. If you still want to contact them, I can only say that all my encounters with "desk" police officers have been nothing but uniformly courteous and helpful.

[cdwjava]

Actually, VC 9853.2 falls into a chapter called "Registration (Vessels)" under Division 3.5 of the code. So it is correctable.

Well, it's actually 3.5, so I'm thinking not. And that is apparently what the court is thinking since it appears that it was the court that nixed the correctable idea.

Note that Division 3.5 also has its own chapters so it appears to be an entirely separate matter from Div. 3. It might make sense to include it, but it appears that the statute may not permit the inclusion of 3.5.

[quirkyquark]

Well, it's actually 3.5, so I'm thinking not. And that is apparently what the court is thinking since it appears that it was the court that nixed the correctable idea.

Note that Division 3.5 also has its own chapters so it appears to be an entirely separate matter from Div. 3. It might make sense to include it, but it appears that the statute may not permit the inclusion of 3.5.

You're right, it's a division that stands on its own. Nevertheless, the fact that it occurs in a chapter called "Registration (Vessels)" under a Division titled "Registration and Transfer of Vessels" would make it eligible as a "registration requirement" of the code, wouldn't it?

Plus the fact that the citation was marked as correctable. The courts have the authority to change a citation to correctable if they determine it falls within 40610 or 40303.5, even if the officer marked it non-correctable (for the intrepid, see California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2008)); presumably, vice versa (though they wouldn't without a very good reason)

Note that the Uniform Bail Schedule does NOT show any "Boating" violations as correctable, although (for example), Santa Barbara County's bail schedule does show 9853.2 as correctable.

Worst case, Tonyabat, you may have to do a TBD or trial and argue that this violation, as a registration requirement and because the arresting officer deemed it so, is correctable. What county are we dealing with here?

[cdwjava]

You're right, it's a division that stands on its own. Nevertheless, the fact that it occurs in a chapter called "Registration (Vessels)" under a Division titled "Registration and Transfer of Vessels" would make it eligible as a "registration requirement" of the code, wouldn't it?

If 40303.5 didn't spell out specifically what sections were included, I'd agree. And since the courts appear to have disregarded the officer's understandable assumption that this was correctable, it would appear that in the opinion of the court - or at least the Clerk's office - the section is not covered under 40610. That being said, nothing prevent a judge from declaring it so at arraignment or trial.

Plus the fact that the citation was marked as correctable. The courts have the authority to change a citation to correctable if they determine it falls within 40610 or 40303.5, even if the officer marked it non-correctable (for the intrepid, see California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2008)); presumably, vice versa (though they wouldn't without a very good reason)

I read that one before, and it doesn't appear at all clear that the reverse is true. In that case they argue that the language is unambiguous. And, since Division 3.5 is not Division 3, it would appear that under that interpretation it does not apply.

Now, I suppose one could argue that under 40610 it might apply, but since it appears the court already feels it does not it might be an issue of paying a lot of money to an attorney to fight something through an appeal.

Note that the Uniform Bail Schedule does NOT show any "Boating" violations as correctable, although (for example), Santa Barbara County's bail schedule does show 9853.2 as correctable.

Perhaps they look more closely at 40610 and not 40303.5.

[quirkyquark]

^^^ Agreed, entirely. I don't say this lightly (since the system is overburdened as is with people hoping the officer doesn't show), but if you can't get this, ahem, fixed by the clerk, you should definitely take it to trial since you really have nothing to lose -- it's a relatively small fine by CA standards and no points.

For an intuitive analogy, should you choose to argue, this is like your boat's "license plate" -- and those violations for vehicles are very much correctable even if someone has no license plate displayed at all! You could also throw in that this sort of discrimination between boat and vehicle owners violates your constitutional rights (Equal Protection).

One more 'defense' point: since your numbers were attached and not painted (as allowed by 9853.2), you can argue they were "equipment" and are as such correctable per 40610.

[Tonyabat]

Thank you all for your replies,
to answer your questions:
1-No the court did not tell me why it was not correctable,
2- The fine or bail amount is due by the 23rd
3- The county is imperial county, I was on the Colorado in Yuma az.
4- The court is 2hrs from where I am.
I have 2 questions:
what do you mean "fixed by the clerk" ?
Are you saying that if I pay this fine I will receive no points on my record?