Yellow Light vs Red Light

[CaliDriver00]

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

Good day all, hope the weekend is coming along well.

After reading here a few of the posts and answers seems like a very helpful site. What brings me here is my traffic ticket I got today for running a yellow light. Clearly I understand that it’s the long weekend and cops are extra cautious about people driving funky. Long story short, I past the intersection while it was yellow, the last glance I remember was yellow as well, never did I see a red light. Cop pulls me over, writes me up for passing a red light he said if he wasn’t sure it was a red light he would have given me a warning.

Do I stand a chance here on fighting this ticket?

He asked me when was the last time I had a ticket I told him I don’t remember since its been so long… he runs my info and comes back saying "I sympathize, but you are being written up"….

[That Guy]

Do I stand a chance here on fighting this ticket?.

What do you seriously expect the answer to be?

Regardless of what you had hoped for, the obvious answer is no, not if you have to prove the you were correct and the officer was wrong. It may depend on his location and orientation but in all seriousness, and not to doubt one word you've said, if he didn't see it at red, do you think he would cite you?

Alternatively, it could be a matter of definition and as I re-read your post I see you describe it as "I past the intersection while it was yellow", and in all honesty, "past" to me, could mean "passed" which could also mean that your claim is that you entered and exited the intersection while it was yellow...

Whereas from the officer's view point, it had to have meant something different. I can't and won't try to predict what his claim is.

But I can tell you that the correct interpretation of the code has nothing to do with what phase the light was in when you exit the intersection, but instead, it requires you to enter the intersection -or more specifically, to pass the limit line- on yellow, otherwise, if the light is in its red phase when you crossed the limit line then you are in violation!

So he sayds you entered an it was already red, you on the other hand, are claiming -assuming I am understanding you correctly- you entered on yellow and went through the intersection on yellow, and it was still yellow when you exited the intersection. This interpretation is further confirmed by your claim that "never did you see a red light", meaning it had to have been yellow for the entire time you were going through the intersection.

Frankly, that is a huge discrepancy. Meaning, one of you is waaay off! So is it a safer bet that the officer has the wrong interpretation, or that you had the wrong interpretation?

[California student]

Do I stand a chance here on fighting this ticket?

You can pull the engineering report on the light and check to make sure that the yellow is properly timed. Besides that, probably not. The problem with essentially most citations besides speeding tickets (and that's because of California's liberal anti-speed trap laws) is that it ultimately comes down to "Officer states you did something" "Defendant replies he didn't do it" and the judge is left to decide who he believes. Anyone want to take a bet on that?

As far as winning on merit, you would need to get the officer to testify that you crossed the limit line, or if a limit line isn't present the cross walk (the line farthest from the intersection, the one closest to you), or if a limit line and cross walk isn't present, the intersection itself.

The big thing to remember if you choose to fight the ticket is that traffic school is guaranteed to be available now. It is up to the judge's discretion following a trial.

[jk]

I see nothing illegal about entering an intersection while the light is yellow regardless of whether it changes while in the intersection to red. The statutes state that when faced with a red light one must stop (at the appropriate stop line, imaginary line, etc.). All a yellow is indicated as is that the drivers ROW is about to end. It does not prohibit one from entering the intersection while yellow and obviously if you enter while it is yellow, you are never faced with the red light and it's requirements.

You might attempt to discover if there are traffic cameras at that intersection. If there are, you may be able to obtain the footage to show the color of the light when you actually entered the intersection.

The big thing to remember if you choose to fight the ticket is that traffic school is guaranteed to be available now. It is up to the judge's discretion following a trial.

something about California's system sounds illegal. Can't put my finger on it but withdrawing the drivers option of traffic school if you do not simply plead guilty rather than when found guilty by a judge seems like wrong.

[Mr. Knowitall]

You can pull the engineering report on the light and check to make sure that the yellow is properly timed.

The argument here appears to be "at all relevant times the light was amber," not, "The light changed from amber to red more quickly than I anticipated."

[California student]

The argument here appears to be "at all relevant times the light was amber," not, "The light changed from amber to red more quickly than I anticipated."

It's much easier to prove that a yellow interval is illegally short than it is to prove that the light was amber when the defendant entered the intersection. One is an engineering report and the other is a verbal disagreement between the officer and the defendant. In a verbal disagreement, are you going to place money on the officer or the defendant prevailing?

- - - Updated - - -

I see nothing illegal about entering an intersection while the light is yellow regardless of whether it changes while in the intersection to red. The statutes state that when faced with a red light one must stop (at the appropriate stop line, imaginary line, etc.). All a yellow is indicated as is that the drivers ROW is about to end. It does not prohibit one from entering the intersection while yellow and obviously if you enter while it is yellow, you are never faced with the red light and it's requirements.

I completely agree. Now prove the OP's side of the story in court.

You might attempt to discover if there are traffic cameras at that intersection. If there are, you may be able to obtain the footage to show the color of the light when you actually entered the intersection.

Good idea. Hopefully the recording, if one is available, hasn't been deleted (they aren't kept forever after all)

something about California's system sounds illegal. Can't put my finger on it but withdrawing the drivers option of traffic school if you do not simply plead guilty rather than when found guilty by a judge seems like wrong.

It's not that the option is removed, just that once you go to court it moves from something that the clerks are authorized to grant (given certain conditions like no CDL, speed violations under 25 mph over, 1 point violation (essentially all bread and butter violations are) to something that the judge is authorized to grant. Unlike the clerk, the judge has discretion. In fact, case law requires the court to consider the facts surrounding the case (People v. Wozniak). However it doesn't remove discretion to refuse to allow traffic school.

[jk]

It's not that the option is removed, just that once you go to court it moves from something that the clerks are authorized to grant (given certain conditions like no CDL, speed violations under 25 mph over, 1 point violation (essentially all bread and butter violations are) to something that the judge is authorized to grant. Unlike the clerk, the judge has discretion. In fact, case law requires the court to consider the facts surrounding the case (People v. Wozniak). However it doesn't remove discretion to refuse to allow traffic school.

what I have a problem with is it being discretionary once you go to court. Prior to court, from my understanding, it isn't discretionary. If the party wishes to plead guilty and attend traffic school, they have a right to do so (as long as meeting all requirements). Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.


I do like the consideration of the short yellow though. It would remove the need to argue with the officers statement.

Beyond that, yes, it is difficult to argue agaisnt the testimony of an officer. The best argument I can come up with would be to question the officer as to the exact location of the car when the light changed to red. He has to be looking at two places at the same time to be able to do so: the light and the road immediately in front of the car. If it is a close call, the officer could easily be in error and has not proven his charge.

other than that, short of calling the cop a liar, I don't see a viable challenge.

[California student]

what I have a problem with is it being discretionary once you go to court. Prior to court, from my understanding, it isn't discretionary. If the party wishes to plead guilty and attend traffic school, they have a right to do so (as long as meeting all requirements). Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

That is how it works. However unless someone wants to lead a letter writing campaign to the State Assembly or back a proposition, we have to work in the system that exists, not the one we'd like to exist.

Beyond that, yes, it is difficult to argue agaisnt the testimony of an officer. The best argument I can come up with would be to question the officer as to the exact location of the car when the light changed to red. He has to be looking at two places at the same time to be able to do so: the light and the road immediately in front of the car. If it is a close call, the officer could easily be in error and has not proven his charge.

other than that, short of calling the cop a liar, I don't see a viable challenge.

All he has to do is be able to testify that he saw the light turn red, then saw the OP enter the intersection. If anything, the best argument would be for the OP to get the officer to testify what he used to judge when the car entered the intersection since the start of the intersection is the limit line, the edge of the cross walk furthest from the intersection if no limit line is present, and the intersection itself if there is no limit line and not cross walk. However this requires a cross examination and cross examination the officer, little less standing up and arguing in court to begin with for someone who hasn't been there before (and I've only been there once) is no simple test simply because of the stress of the situation.

[jk]

California student;622048]That is how it works. However unless someone wants to lead a letter writing campaign to the State Assembly or back a proposition, we have to work in the system that exists, not the one we'd like to exist.

as I said, I see a problem with that. I suspect it is more than just my feelings but I cannot articulate what it is at the moment.

All he has to do is be able to testify that he saw the light turn red, then saw the OP enter the intersection.

if it was that clear, then my argument obviously would not work. It requires a close proximity to the stop bar (or required stopping point) so as to not be able to simultaneously observe both when it is required to observe both to be able to make the call.

If anything, the best argument would be for the OP to get the officer to testify what he used to judge when the car entered the intersection since the start of the intersection is the limit line, the edge of the cross walk furthest from the intersection if no limit line is present, and the intersection itself if there is no limit line and not cross walk.

that is useful only if the cop used the incorrect delineation of the intersection.

However this requires a cross examination and cross examination the officer, little less standing up and arguing in court to begin with for someone who hasn't been there before (and I've only been there once) is no simple test simply because of the stress of the situation.

well, usually that and "I am not guilty" are your choices in court. Since the "I am not guilty" argument is usually not successful, either plan on questioning the cop or you might as well just plead guilty.

[Mr. Knowitall]

It's much easier to prove that a yellow interval is illegally short than it is to prove that the light was amber when the defendant entered the intersection.

Again, the driver appears to be saying that the light was amber when he entered and amber when he exited. The officer appears to be stating that the light was red when the driver entered ("if he wasn’t sure it was a red light he would have given me a warning"). The duration of the amber light is irrelevant to both arguments. It's the color on entry that matters.

(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a 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 to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).

(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.

(c) 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.

(d) Unless otherwise directed by a pedestrian control signal as provided in Section 21456, a pedestrian facing a steady circular red or red arrow signal shall not enter the roadway.