Failure to Carry Proof of Insurance with a Non-Correctable Mark

[Brandon11]

I've seen this particular violation discussed before, but my case is slightly different.

When I was pulled over for driving in the car pool lane as the only passenger (really dumb, I know), I could not find my insurance card. I actually called my wife when the officer had pulled me over so that I could try to find it. As I asked her where it was he came back and told me to sign the ticket. I signed the ticket as I proceeded to continue looking for the insurance card as he walked away and handed me the ticket. He had never mentioned ticketing me for not having the insurance card, and after he walked away I found it, but as I looked at the ticket he had cited me for not having insurance.

To make matters worse, he filled out that it was a 16028 (a) but then marked that it was not a correctable violation. When I called the superior court, they said that I would have to contest the ticket as opposed to mailing in proof of insurance or showing it to the clerk. Does anyone have any advice or know the specifics of this law?

[That Guy]

Basics: Any violation listed under VC 40303.5 is "potentially eligible for correction". If you look at that code section, you will see that it includes equipment violations, license and registration violation... As far as the "potentially" part, it applies to those violations specifically because there are times where the officer may suspect or know for a fact that there is evidence of any of the following: Fraud, neglect, immediate hazard, refusal or inability to correct the problem (if cited previously for the same thing) choose to issue that citation as non-correctable pursuant to VC40610... "If a citation does not indicate that an offense is eligible for correction, a court may presume that the offense is cited as noncorrectable". (See also California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 740.)

Having said all that, none of it applies to VC 16028(a) simply because that code section isn't listed under and 40303.5 or 40610. Instead, a violation of VC 16028(a) is made correctable pursuant to subsection 16028(e).

Evidence of Financial Responsibility Upon Request

16028. (a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the time the demand is made. However, a peace officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.

...

...
(e) A person issued a notice to appear for a violation of subdivision (a) may personally appear before the clerk of the court, as designated in the notice to appear, and provide written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, showing that the driver was in compliance with that section at the time the notice to appear for violating subdivision (a) was issued. In lieu of the personal appearance, the person may submit by mail to the court written evidence of having had financial responsibility at the time the notice to appear was issued. Upon receipt by the clerk of that written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, further proceedings on the notice to appear for the violation of subdivision (a) shall be dismissed.

Note that it does not say anything about correctable or non-correctable.... it only says "... if you were cited, show up with proof you were insured and the violation SHALL (not can, not may, not if they want to... but SHALL) be dismissed..."

Still, you may have a difficult time getting the clerk to dismiss so you may have to appear in court, argue the matter as I did here, and have the judge order it dismissed.

Oh, there is one possible reason why the officer marked it as non-correctable. See as of a couple of years ago, all insurers selling policies in this state had to make arrangement to link their systems to the DMV where policy validations, cancellations, expirations... etc are reported electronically. Well, not only does the DMV have access to that information but so do officers in the field (or at least it was supposed to be set up that way).

So is it possible that your policy may have lapsed at the time?

No need to answer me, I say that so you can look into it and verify it before going to court with a card showing a valid card where that actual policy isn't.

Hey, mistakes happen!

[Brandon11]

That Guy,

Thanks so much for the answer! I know for certain that my policy did not lapse, but there is the possibility that my insurance provider is not in the system. This is very promising news. I will update this post when everything is resolved.