No Right Turn on Red Violation, VC 21453(A)

[teo032]

The officer only needs a clear line of sight of the front side of the cross walk and a clear view of the light. However, make sure to look for "snitch" (is there a term for these?) light. Sometimes traffic lights will have a single small red light point towards a parking lot or off to the side so that the officer can have an indication when the light turns red without having to see the light pointing towards traffic.

thanks for the input, but when I was there at where he camped. He does not have a view of the crosswalk (my crosswalk). He barely has a view of the adjacent crosswalk (the 2nd crosswalk I would pass). But yeah, not sure if you read the entire thread lol, but he does not have a view of me crossing my crosswalk, so I don't think he can determine if I actually passed the line before it hit red. I actually don't even think he saw me make the turn until I already started to drive towards him. He does have a clear view of the red light though, not going to argue that.

But what I was saying, I was turning really slow, he even marked me at 5mph when I passed him, So he could've just misjudged when he saw the redlight, and saw me about to pass his line of view. He would think, "oh he just turned on red light," when in fact I already completed the turn then it turned red, and then he finally saw me.

However, although this defense may or may not work. There is the other defense that he marked the wrong code, and I hope that it can be easily dismissed by proving there is no RED ARROW to restrict me BUT there is a no turn on red sign.

Just wondering if anyone have experience or any input on what's the best way.

Oh I need to edit what I said earlier. When I replicate where the cruiser parked, I was in the car and trying to get a view of the crosswalk. I couldn't see the line until I notice the front of my car is already in the sidewalk driveway of the parking lot, so he must have been further back and the building would have obstructed his view. Cruisers cannot (should not) park here because it's illegal. I am pointing this out because it would be an argument on where the police officer is positioned. If the officer said he does have a clear view, I would refute it by saying his car needs to be on the sidewalk to have any view of my car.

[themadnorwegian]

Also the light does not have a red arrow but a sign that says no right turn on red does this apply to 21453(C)? Would whoever reads the TBWD take that into account? I don't want to simply say I turned on green because I'm sure that loses a lot lol.

I would not say "wrong citation" in your defense. The prosecution has to present evidence about each element of the charged offense. For 21453(c), the code reads:

A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.

So, if you can show that there isn't a red arrow at this intersection, then there's no way that you can be guilty of a 21453(c) violation. I'd take a picture of the traffic signal at this intersection, and use that to support your argument. If you were cited for making a turn at an intersection that was prohibited by a sign, that would be a violation of 22101(d).

However, make sure to look for "snitch" (is there a term for these?) light.

I've heard these called Rat Boxes, Red Light Enforcement Indicators, and Red-Signal Enforcement Lights. The first name is my favorite. The second and third links have a few pictures of these devices.

[sniper]

What intersection are we talking about?

[teo032]

I would not say "wrong citation" in your defense. The prosecution has to present evidence about each element of the charged offense. For 21453(c), the code reads:

So, if you can show that there isn't a red arrow at this intersection, then there's no way that you can be guilty of a 21453(c) violation. I'd take a picture of the traffic signal at this intersection, and use that to support your argument. If you were cited for making a turn at an intersection that was prohibited by a sign, that would be a violation of 22101(d).

Hey thanks a lot! You're right I should not put "wrong" citation. I remember reading that in the many other threads, but I totally forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder.

What intersection are we talking about?

Oh sorry, I thought I mentioned it, but I only showed pictures. It's in Garden Grove, CA the intersection of Garden Grove blvd and Brookhurst.

heading east, turning south.

[That Guy]

If you were cited for making a turn at an intersection that was prohibited by a sign, that would be a violation of 22101(d).

Turning right on red, in violation of a "No Turn On Red" sign is a violation of 21453 as well (See subsections (a) & (b)).

---

lol sorry

I'm curious... You typed up most of your first post while under the impression that you had been cited for 21453(a) only to realize later that you were cited for 21453(c) instead... Is that because his hand writing is unclear or is there another reason?

[teo032]

I actually knew the code could be used for 21453a because Ironically I was helping my friend a couple days before and looked up the code only to get a ticket of that.

His handwriting is very very sloppy lol..it's not like a kids handwriting.. its those all caps writing that are small (defeats the purpose? lol.) his N's looks like U's.. his U's and V's are identical. His R's look like P's I think you get the point lol

But yeah at first I thought he wrote lower case a on the ticket well like an incomplete lower a.. TBH it looks like a backwards comma, it is that small. But looking closely it is a C because all his a's are capitalized A i'll try to post a picture really soon.



obviously it looks bigger in the picture, but the gaps between the lines are actually really small

and yes that does say BROOKHURST LOL

[That Guy]

I turned right very slowly (friend was killed recently because of this so i'm extra cautious)

I actually knew the code could be used for 21453a because Ironically I was helping my friend a couple days before and looked up the code only to get a ticket of that.

You know for someone who's "friend was killed recently because of this", you and your friends aren't really being that extra cautious, are you?

His handwriting is very very sloppy lol..it's not like a kids handwriting.. its those all caps writing that are small (defeats the purpose? lol.) his N's looks like U's.. his U's and V's are identical. His R's look like P's I think you get the point lol

But yeah at first I thought he wrote lower case a on the ticket well like an incomplete lower a.. TBH it looks like a backwards comma, it is that small. But looking closely it is a C because all his a's are capitalized A i'll try to post a picture really soon.

obviously it looks bigger in the picture, but the gaps between the lines are actually really small

and yes that does say BROOKHURST LOL

I do see how it can be mistaken for a "c", however, with the notation just to its right, I'm not sure I'd count on it being a "c" in his notes. One more thing to note, defendant gets the 2nd duplicate copy, the court gets the top copy, and the top copy might have more that didn't show on the duplicates if he wasn't pressing hard enough... so even if it shows a "c" on your courtesy notice, I'd still be skeptical until the arraignment. Which then brings up the other issue here which is that you don't appear for an arraignment when you request a TBD, you request that either in person or in writing from the clerk... So, you request a TBD, the court prints out forms, mails them to the officer, he gets them sits down to write his declaration, see as "c" on the TR-235, sees an "a" in his notes, he might say "F*** it" and toss it, or since there is no reason whatsoever why he could not re-file it with the correct code, he may opt for that instead.
For those who say "no he can't"...
Sure he can... Dismiss and refile!
"Not worth the hassle?"
His decision not yours!!!
OK, so you say "new notice to appear has no signature promising to appear"!
I say: "fine, Orange County isn't like L. A. County; even without a signature, they can place a hold on the defendant's license for failing to appear".

All this boils down to whether the citation will get corrected or not... Even if it doesn't get corrected, you submit a TBD saying I'm not guilty of 21453(c) and showing there is no arrow... officer submit a declaration claiming he cited you for 21453(a)... that is not going to make it all go away by itself. You still have some legal wrangling to do! while you're free to stick to your story, once you get your SWORN statements down in a TBD, submit those to the court, you are now stuck with that story... Why? Simply because while some may say "trial de novo = new trial" meaning TBD does not count, the TBD you submitted is still in your case file and the judge has the option to read it before your trial... If you happened to change your statements from TBD to trial... Wouldn't look good for you!

There are several other points that I want to make here, some are because of some incorrect/inaccurate assumptions you're making but others because of some inconsistencies in what you've posted (like the one at the top of this post - maybe even worse).... but I am running out of time and will finish this later on this evening...

In the meantime, if anyone wants to add... correct... clarify anything, its all yours...

[teo032]

thanks for the heads up! But I really do think he wrote C instead of an A, there is not one single lower case letter in his write up, and the last stroke (the line going down for an "a") is usually easy to press down upon. Although, it is just an assumption, but if you go and write a lower case a yourself you can kind of understand what I mean by having that last stroke be a firm one. I can understand if the judge or whoever sees the actual copy and it does show an "A" I would be found guilty, but I think it is a C which I have a "chance" to win against. But going to the trial de novo, I would be able to see what the officer declared, so if he firmly says that he put 21453a, then of course I would have to try to use my original story amirite?

Second of all, I don't see any inconsistency of what I wrote. When I received the ticket, I stated that I turned on yellow, and there was no way he can see me driving because obvious he was behind the building. I pointed out multiple times that his position doesn't allow him to spot me or the cross walks, that is my argument. I have no idea why you said it was inconsistent. I think it was only inconsistent because I actually went to the area that he camps at, and try to see things in his perspective. I then gave details of what he can see and what he can't see. The only way he can have any glimpse of anyone turning is if his cop cruiser scoots far enough up pass the building to look around the building. Therefore, I tested it myself with myself in my own car *very short car*, and even in my car probably a good 2 ft shorter in the front than a crown victoria. I was already in the sidewalk when I was able to see the crosswalk.

It was very disrespectful for you to talk about my friend not being "extra cautious". I don't think you understand that he was riding his bicycle when he was hit by a car... it was actual a hit and run.. the driver was a 19 year old... he could've called the cops and it was possible to save my friend's life if he had helped right away. But the report says nobody discovered his body until a couple hours later. It was night time and he was hit hard enough that he flew onto the grass/bush area. So I don't see why you have to talk about someone's late friend like that. If you're wondering why he was biking at night. He was biking home from going to the gym. And if you're talking about my other friend who got the ticket; he didn't know my friend. His ticket was for something else, Left turn or something along those lines. I read up on the codes and subsection. I saw 21453 on my paper and didn't look at the subsection and immediately thought that it was 21453a.

What I said was I made a really slow right turn, it was still green, I have to watch out for bikers and pedestrians obviously, it is a busy crosswalk, i turned so slow that I practically stopped at the line. btw, you can see the bike lanes in the picture. But obviously I was already crossing the line when the light turn yellow; do you expect me to just stomp on the brakes half way on both crosswalks? I actually considered that har.. har... but quickly realized im blocking crosswalks that's probably illegal or something. At the speed that I was turning and how he has a obstructed view, I can probably guess he couldn't see me until about 2 secs after the light turn red. IT's not like im gonna floor it right after a turn lol.

I truly appreciate your help, but that friends thing... that was a douche comment. But yeah my friends ticket was like a left turn at one of those turn only when green kind of light. He was stuck in there all the way until it turned red (cops wrote him down for it). But that's a completely different matter.