Ticket for a Legal U-Turn, VC 22102

[groove502]

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

A family member was pulled over last week and was issued VC 22102 in Monrovia. The intersection is Myrtle and Lime. She was heading north on Myrtle. At Lime, she made a U-turn and went southbound back on Myrtle. She states that the officer came up behind her from his spot one block north at Palm, and she yielded onto Lemon, one block south of Lime. The officer asked her if she was lost, which she stated she was. The officer said that it looked like you made a uturn back there, and she said yes, it was true. Officer said you aren't allowed to make a uturn in a residential area. Officer asked for her license and registration, said to sit tight, then issued her the citation.

Intersection of interest.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=myrtle...2,3.04,,0,-0.7

As you can see, extremely narrow street running through Oldtown Monrovia. Officer issues VC 22102, U turn in a business district.

VC 22102

No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651. This turning movement shall be made as close as practicable to the extreme left-hand edge of the lanes moving in the driver's direction of travel immediately prior to the initiation of the turning movement, when more than one lane in the direction of travel is present.

She did make the uturn at that intersection. She said there were no "no uturn" signs posted, and from google streets, I don't see any either. Just from this fact alone, this ticket should be defeatable, however, I fear this will turn into "I did one thing, officer says another thing."

I've looked at VC 235, 515, 240, and 21651 just because the officer said "no uturns in a residential area." I'm pretty certain that the street does not fall under a residential district, so the ticket WAS written correctly. So it all falls back onto 22102.

What should we do?

[That Guy]

A family member was pulled over last week and was issued VC 22102 in Monrovia. The intersection is Myrtle and Lime. She was heading north on Myrtle. At Lime, she made a U-turn and went southbound back on Myrtle. She states that the officer came up behind her from his spot one block north at Palm, and she yielded onto Lemon, one block south of Lime. The officer asked her if she was lost, which she stated she was. The officer said that it looked like you made a uturn back there, and she said yes, it was true.

Good details but none are relevant IMO...

Officer said you aren't allowed to make a uturn in a residential area.

Not really an issue.... For all intents and purposes, he could have told her she was speeding on the freeway or some other irrelavant action/violation.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=myrtle...2,3.04,,0,-0.7

Looks like a business district to me!

VC 235. A "business district" is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto (a) upon one side of which highway, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied. A business district may be longer than the distances specified in this section if the above ratio of buildings in use for business to the length of the highway exists.

We don't even have to count and calculate a percentage. Distance from A to B is approximately 600 feet (300 feet north of Lime and 300 feet south of Lime) And it appears that close to 100% of properties are occupied by businesses.

VC 22102

No person in a business district shall make a U-turn, except at an intersection, or on a divided highway where an opening has been provided in accordance with Section 21651. This turning movement shall be made as close as practicable to the extreme left-hand edge of the lanes moving in the driver's direction of travel immediately prior to the initiation of the turning movement, when more than one lane in the direction of travel is present.

She did make the uturn at that intersection.

My guess is the officer thinks she made the u-turn midblock! That would be illegal and no signs are required to prohibit it!

I fear this will turn into "I did one thing, officer says another thing."

Precisely!

I've looked at VC 235, 515, 240, and 21651 just because the officer said "no uturns in a residential area." I'm pretty certain that the street does not fall under a residential district, so the ticket WAS written correctly. So it all falls back onto 22102.

240, by definition is not relevant (none of the language in it is applicable); 515 is certainly not applicable; I am not sure how 21651 would even be considered, and as far as the officer saying one thing and citing another, that could be intentional (as in he lied) or it could have been an error. If it was an error, it was certainly corrected in writing, therefore it is no longer an issue. Alternatively (and though I don't see a reason why he would lie and say resident district when it is clearly a business district) but even if he did lie, remember, officers are allowed to lie during an investigation to see if they can solicit some sort of confession or a different answer than what they've been given, so that is not an issue either.

It will indeed boil down to how he testifies either in a TBD or at trial... If he says she made the u-turn midblock, she is out of luck. If he testifies that she made the U-turn withing the intersection, well that, by definition is allowed!

What should we do?

The obvious start would be a discovery request to try and establish whether his notes mention any details about the actual location of the u-turn. That is assuming the police do in fact respond to the discovery request and do provide a copy of the officer's notes (if any). By police, I think I would be correct in assuming that Los Angeles County Sheriff has jurisdiction in Monrovia or it obviously could be the CHP (which has jurisdiction everywhere)!

If it is the latter, her chances of the officer not submitting a declaration and/or not appearing at a trial are fairly slim. If instead she was cited by LASD, my guess is her chances improve considerably (but not by a huge amount).

[groove502]

Thanks TG for your quick and extensive reply. Always a great help!

Looks like a business district to me!

You're correct, I know that it is a business district for sure, just being in oldtown Monrovia, chock full of restaurants and small shops, and a public library across the street. Fits the definition of 235 to the T.

Just from what she told me on the phone a week ago, I was going to straight up tell her just to do traffic school, cause I assumed she had made the uturn mid block. However, since she said it was made at the intersection, I decided to look into it further, but it is indeed going to be up to what the officer does in the TBD.

The obvious start would be a discovery request to try and establish whether his notes mention any details about the actual location of the u-turn. That is assuming the police do in fact respond to the discovery request and do provide a copy of the officer's notes (if any). By police, I think I would be correct in assuming that Los Angeles County Sheriff has jurisdiction in Monrovia or it obviously could be the CHP (which has jurisdiction everywhere)!

If it is the latter, her chances of the officer not submitting a declaration and/or not appearing at a trial are fairly slim. If instead she was cited by LASD, my guess is her chances improve considerably (but not by a huge amount).

It was Monrovia PD. I guess I am curious enough to find out what will be written in his TBD if I do go that route after discovery. I will fire off a request this week.

I've learned a lot about traffic law and how it works (really scratched the surface really) from experiences in my own case, but I find it frustrating that if the officer says that she made the turn mid block, but she honestly made it at the intersection, there is nothing really to do. The officer's word will be considered above hers. We'd just have to do the traffic school option at that point then.

P.S. I sent my opening brief off last week for MY 22350 case. Now the waiting game!

[That Guy]

I've learned a lot about traffic law and how it works (really scratched the surface really) from experiences in my own case...

Yeah, but you've gone full course in your case... From traffic stop to the appeal! Not many people can make that claim... Example: I never made it as far as you have! (More on this in a bit).

I find it frustrating that if the officer says that she made the turn mid block, but she honestly made it at the intersection, there is nothing really to do. The officer's word will be considered above hers. We'd just have to do the traffic school option at that point then.

Primarily, and simply, it is becaause the officer has no vested interest in the outcome (except for the time vested in writing the citation, submitting a TBD, going to trial... etc, none of which are actual monetary costs), whereas the defendant might be more inclined to twist the truth in hopes he/she will safe the fine amount.

Secondary to that, is the fact that your average defendant wouldn't mind perjuring him/herself to save a few bucks! We've got a forum full of them... I guess to a certain degree, we have them to thank!

P.S. I sent my opening brief off last week for MY 22350 case. Now the waiting game!

I did get your PM, by the way... and as I said above, I have not made it as far as you have in the appeals process, so I honestly would rather refrain from giving an answer, instead of giving one which ends up being wrong. I had planned on making an attempt to look into it for you (and to better educate myself) but really have not had a chance. I was going to suggest that the clerks at the appellate division are a bit different than those at the Superior court level in that they know half of what they're doing, and even with as short lived as mine was, they did in fact give me some great pointers. Keep in mind that they will answer general question but they will refrain from commenting on anything which can be construed as "legal advice"!

I'll look forward for an update with hopefully some good news.

[lostintime]

Primarily, and simply, it is becaause the officer has no vested interest in the outcome (except for the time vested in writing the citation, submitting a TBD, going to trial... etc, none of which are actual monetary costs), whereas the defendant might be more inclined to twist the truth in hopes he/she will safe the fine amount.

Secondary to that, is the fact that your average defendant wouldn't mind perjuring him/herself to save a few bucks! We've got a forum full of them... I guess to a certain degree, we have them to thank!

The average defendant on the traffic forum should now be guilty of perjury too! Although you didn't use those exact words it was obviously implied! One of TG's many tricks up his sleeve! Not say something directly, just imply it, then get mad when it's pointed out and tell you he never said that! You should really consider stooging for LA county traffic court. Maybe a "court jester" position would work for you if it were offered.

There is an interest as well to write tickets. You really think it's going to impress the sarge to come back from traffic duty having written none or not enough citations? Tickets are like a sales job to them.

Not even a year ago, in LA County.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/12/r...ta-system-win/

[That Guy]

Groove, let me introduce you by quoting what I believe to be a fairly accurate description of this thing that just posted all that gibberish:

Ahhh Nomoretix, you're in luck... You get to meet our resident troll/jester (he splits his time between two positions). lostintime lost a Lidar speeding citation case in his state of Iowa over 6 months ago... Poor guy nearly losthismind as a result. So now he wanders aimlessly around the traffic forum repeating the same statements again and again, "LIDAR @ how far?", "LIDAR @ how far?".... even though he's been told several times that disclosing the distance, or even the type of device on the citation is not a requirement!

(If you just ignore him, he'll go away on his own).

---

The average defendant on the traffic forum should now be guilty of perjury too!

Actually, no!

I knew that would hit a nerve with you (not because you're hurt by it but simply because you love to bitch and whine about something... anything I post as a result of this obsession you suddenly developed for me and my posts which is God damned CREEPY if you ask me), so I generalized hoping I'd keep you out of this thread!

So no, not the average defendant on the traffic forum... Only idiot morons like you who become so obsessively anti-enforcement to a point where they are so blatant and desperate with their goal of beating the system, their act of perjuring themselves becomes an easy collateral to their obsession, that they will go as far as starting multiple threads (THREE in your case ONE..... TWO and THREE... Actually, I stand corrected as there were FOUR threads re your one citation), each full of questions and insinuations asking which lie would work best in their favor, knowing full well they will be in "A COURT OF LAW" and they will be "UNDER OATH TO TELL THE TRUTH" and yet still, at the end of the day end up losing their case.

PATHETIC!!!

(Then there was also the thread you "faked" which ended up backfiring in your face simply because it proved what a useless tool you are)!

Not say something directly, just imply it, then get mad when it's pointed out and tell you he never said that!

Wait... So all of a sudden you got smart and can tell what I'm implying and what I've got up my sleeve? And yet you still cannot figure out your mouth from your dung hole!

Seriously, get out of here!

You should really consider stooging for LA county traffic court. Maybe a "court jester" position would work for you if it were offered.

Now, now... Nice try, but the joke is on YOU dumbass!

Jokes are usually only funny the first time... And when you start stealing my jokes... specifically the ones I made about YOU, not only does your ignorance show, but you're also showing what a sore bitter loser you are!


I am referring to a post I made back on 8/19/2011 (post #14):

Coming from the "court jester" (how is that for “pinpoint” accuracy), I am not the least bit offended by your suggestion.

........................
...................................

You've obviously lost focus... We're not discussing marketing strategies... We are discussing Lidar speed enforcement. Of course this could also mean that your song and dance is about to come to a screeching halt! Time for the next court jester to put on their tights and funny hat and hit center stage!

.......................................
.............................

Again, you're the “court jester", not only in your Iowa court... You're the poster child for each and every fool that has ever walked in to any court of law, anywhere... You should really take your colorful tights, your funny hat and you song and dance elsewhere!

And in another thread on the same date:

And as the “court jester” and the extent of foolishness that you've demonstrated in your own threads, you're battling with Excelsius on who should be last on the list of meaningful opinions!

That only lasted one day... That is how quickly you've been outgrowing your descriptions!

There is an interest as well to write tickets. You really think it's going to impress the sarge to come back from traffic duty having written none or not enough citations? Tickets are like a sales job to them.

Considering the fact that I was specific with regards to "none of which are actual monetary costs", a three year old child can figure out that I am talking about "financially vested", but apparently an adult idiot from Iowa needs that bit explained to him!

Funny how you claim you can figure out what I implied when I was talking about liars (did it hit a nerve or a sore spot?), and yet when I gave a HUGE hint to what I was implying, you missed the entire point!!!

Not even a year ago, in LA County.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/12/r...ta-system-win/

Ahhh, yes...

1) Let me start with your continuing to cite "blogs" as proof/confirmation/justification for some belief of yours means very little and adds very little value to your commentary. EXAMPLE: I can start a blog and in it, I state the following:

"'lostintime' is a real upstanding and honest citizen, who is intelligent, well respected and loved by his parents"

Does that change the fact that YOU ARE a lying idiot who has no self respect and who's parents claim he's adopted simply because they feel ashamed to admit he's their blood?

Nope!

2) If you cannot tell the difference between the Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept (LASD Deputy in the picture) and the Los Angeles (City)Police Dept. you should really refrain from blogging about any matters relating to either entities.

3) You can look at that case and say "quotas do exist" but that is too simplistic and weak... I choose to look at it and say "Quotas are against the law, and a $2 million Dollar reward is the penalty for such an unlawful act... Perfect proof that they ARE illegal" (See VC 41600 as well as VC 41601 and VC 41602).

4) There is nothing in that entire case that could even come close to suggesting that ANYONE made orders or was ordered to fake citations or make any up to achieve the preset goals. There is no evidence, not even a claim that ANYONE, in that police station or anywhere on the LAPD roster wrote an illegal citation. The pressure (requirement) was to write a certain number of LAWFUL enforceable citations per day...

Making that a requirement is unlawful...

Actually writing lawful citation is, ..., precisely what officers are trained, hired and paid to do. My tax dollars at work!!!! And if you have an issue with that then either be 100% sure you are driving within the limits of the law, or don't drive at all!

So, tell me doofus... Your point in mentioning that case is... what, again?

[groove502]

Thanks for the introduction TG. I read through some of his posts in that red light case thread in this same forum. Very interesting indeed.

I also understand why you post the way that you do, even though it seems to irk a lot of people on the traffic forums. I too would be jaded with how a majority of posters here, like you mentioned, are simply trying to get out of their citation any way that they can, without really READING the plethora of good advice available here.

It's unfortunate that most of the general public's only exposure to the judicial system is through traffic incidents. You cannot just weasel or sob story your way out in court, 99% of the time the judge does not care (I was in this train of thought too before all this). Their job is to interpret the law the way it is written. Once posters get out of that mentality, maybe they'll understand how to work with the system, even though it may not work out in the end.

Also, whatever happened to QQ? Hope he's been alright.

[lostintime]

"That Guy" has a bizarre fascination (almost Freudian) with telling everyone they deserve the ticket, must be lying...he goes into a chant when you point it out and writes a thesis on how...you must be another dumb liar too!

For example, I got one ticket before in which I was not going the alleged speed, he probably wrote a short story or two exclusively geared towards me. Another thing he does not believe, I have gladly paid the tickets in which I actually was speeding. In the midwest, there isn't this "fight your ticket" mentality you have on the west coast and it's actually a controversial thing to do. Another thing, I was in LA recently, and I stopped at an In-N-Out Burger on Van Nuys Blvd in Sherman Oaks - there were both LAPD and LASD there ordering lunch. Get this...I was able to tell the difference. They have different colored shirts. He writes in a purely sensationalist, chiding tone, meanwhile accusing of the stupidest thing. Like saying..."you don't know what 2 + 2 is! I'm better than you!" He really is "That" bad.

His idea is that 99% of anyone looking for advice here, must be a liar and trying to get out of the "righteous and valid!" ticket, because officers never make mistakes with their LIDAR or radar guns, and if they did, their visual estimate is never off more than 5mph! He also doesn't understand that law enforcement is part of mankind...and all of mankind is eligible to err on occasion. In his mind, a citation that shouldn't have been written happens maybe once during a cycle of Halley's Comet.

Now he claims to have invented the term "Court jester", just like Al Gore invented the internet.

[Mr. Knowitall]

It's one type of forum behavior to go around telling people, "You got yourself into this predicament by doing X, and thus deserve a ticket". It's fair to take issue with that in any given case, although often it is correct.

It's another type of forum behavior to follow behind another forum user to snark at them. If you believe that "That Guy" was wrong, it's fair to explain your different opinion. Posting three paragraphs just to complain about him? Disruptive of somebody else's thread and not helpful to others.

[lostintime]

Knowitall, he takes it much farther than I ever have with the 'snark'. I've never used any profane language directed towards him, and he has several times with me.

Even in topics regarding LIDAR, I've tried to help others (understanding the difficulty and already skewed traffic court system and always making this clear). I mention that New Jersey has a LIDAR ruling at 1,000ft without expert testimony - and discuss the reasons for this (fully understanding they do not apply to other states - but there is a reason they are in place). The second I make mention of this, an argument with him automatically ensues. Someone else says it, it's fine then.

Yet, when I say it, it's a journal entry for "That Guy". He's worse than Matt Damon in Talented Mr Ripley.