Unsafe Left Turn at a T-Intersection

[notnecessarily]

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

Many thanx to all whom helped me with my U-turn violation awhile back ... now my dad needs your help!
He turned left from Everett Ave onto Garvey Ave (West bound), Monterey Park with the cop was practically already on the right lane of Garvey.
Both adjacent intersections were red so a few cars going west were already lining up... My dad claimed there were no incoming cars in either direction so it was safe for him
to get into the left Garvey lane waiting for green... he said his tail was not protruding to the lane of traffic going east bound, eventhough his car wasn't completely straight.
No incoming traffic was noticeable until approximately 10-20 seconds later when all intersections lit green... As he moved forward, the cop pulled him over citing unsafe left turn.

to make matter worse, my 74-year old fater was so flustered at the time, he couldn't produce proof of insurance even though he had it in the car, just not where it supposed to be.
the fine came back about $1200 for both infraction. I would like to fight this for him ... what would be the best way to go about apparently he does not have $1200 bail and i'm currently unemployed.

[That Guy]

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

Many thanx to all whom helped me with my U-turn violation awhile back ... now my dad needs your help!
He turned left from Everett Ave onto Garvey Ave (West bound), Monterey Park with the cop was practically already on the right lane of Garvey.
Both adjacent intersections were red so a few cars going west were already lining up... My dad claimed there were no incoming cars in either direction so it was safe for him
to get into the left Garvey lane waiting for green... he said his tail was not protruding to the lane of traffic going east bound, eventhough his car wasn't completely straight.
No incoming traffic was noticeable until approximately 10-20 seconds later when all intersections lit green... As he moved forward, the cop pulled him over citing unsafe left turn.

to make matter worse, my 74-year old fater was so flustered at the time, he couldn't produce proof of insurance even though he had it in the car, just not where it supposed to be.
the fine came back about $1200 for both infraction. I would like to fight this for him ... what would be the best way to go about apparently he does not have $1200 bail and i'm currently unemployed.

The failure to provide proof of insurance and assuming it was cited as VC 16028(a) and marked on the citation as "correctable", it can be dismissed upon:

1) providing proof of insurance (showing he was covered at the time the citation was issued) to the court clerk; and
2) Payment of a $25 administrative fee.

The other violation, I am not sure what you mean by: "the cop was practically already on the right lane of Garvey".

And where was your dad at the time?

As for adjacent intersections, other traffic, at the time he turned or much later, it really isn't relevant. If he was in a situation where he cut the cop off or turned in front of him, then that is all the traffic that is needed to qualify the allegation that a violation was committed.

You should post the code section # he was cited for and explain ^that^ bit and we'll go from there.

Keep in mind though, in spite of his age and your unquestionable desire and enthusiasm, to "fight this for him", you cannot do that. Only an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California can represent him, otherwise, he is the one who will have to appear, make any and all requests, and argue his case in front of the judge if need be!

[notnecessarily]

TY, sir, for your reply!
yes, it was VC16028(a) but marked "No" on "Correctable" ... He's insured at the time, but all he can show to the cop was an expired policy, could this be the reason for citing as not correctable??? it doesn't make sense!!!

Garvey runs West-East and carries 2 lanes ... my dad turned left onto its LEFT lane from Everett ave while cop already stopped on the right lane of Garvey waiting for green signal... not cutting him off in anyways..... he got cited for VC 21801(a) Left Turn Unsafe ... I read the VC and it says something about turning with vehicles approaching, but Everyone was practically at standstill waiting for green when he turned ... there's no hazardous condition as far as he can see... can we literally attack the language????

As far as fighting, i would like to be on the stand with him as an interpreter due to his limited English, instead of utilizing court house's interpreter... that way, i can provide some mental and emotional supports as well as coaching possibility...

[That Guy]

yes, it was VC16028(a) but marked "No" on "Correctable" ... He's insured at the time, but all he can show to the cop was an expired policy, could this be the reason for citing as not correctable??? it doesn't make sense!!!

Hard to guess why the officer would mark it as non-correctable. Has your dad been cited for a 160289(a) before?

Regardless, it does not matter "why", in fact,. now that I read the code section itself, it does not even mention the need for it to be correctable

Garvey runs West-East and carries 2 lanes ... my dad turned left onto its LEFT lane from Everett ave while cop already stopped on the right lane of Garvey waiting for green signal... not cutting him off in anyways..... he got cited for VC 21801(a) Left Turn Unsafe ... I read the VC and it says something about turning with vehicles approaching, but Everyone was practically at standstill waiting for green when he turned ... there's no hazardous condition as far as he can see... can we literally attack the language????

21801(a)

The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left or to complete a U-turn upon a highway, or to turn left into public or private property, or an alley, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn or U-turn can be made with reasonable safety.

I guess it can be described as an "unsafe left turn" because safety is one element of the violation, but mainly and the glaring reason he got cited here was because he "failed to yield".

A few things first, (1) it shouldn't matter that it was a cop; we could for all intents and purposes refer to him as traffic, in fact, we SHOULD also consider the traffic situation -at that intersection- as a whole as well... Simply because the code section does not refer to any single lane on its own. (2) you first said "the cop was practically already on the right lane of Garvey", and now you're saying "cop already stopped on the right lane of Garvey"; I'm not sure if its getting lost in the translation... but really, whether he was stopped or not makes little difference, he still had the right of way. Additionally, even if he was in the right lane, he still had the right of way to change into the left lane if he chooses to, right? Simply because 21801 says traffic turning left onto Garvey must yield the right of way to Eastbound traffic on Garvey -no matter which lane that traffic was in-, and subsequently yield the right of way to Westbound traffic on Garvey -no matter which lane that traffic was in-.
(3) If we were to look at this:



... and try to establish where traffic was, we can first establish that (a) there was no traffic headed EASTbound on Garvey, (b) that locations "A" through "J" are locations where WESTbound headed vehicles may have been in at some point, (c) locations "K, L and M" are locations that your Dad was in at some point in time.

• So when your Dad began his turn and was entering the intersection going from K, to L, to M, where was the cop at that time? Was he at "A", "B" or "C"?
• And you say the cop stopped, but that was not because Dad was approaching, he stopped because traffic in front of him was stopped, correct?
• What location was traffic stopped at in the RIGHT lane? Location "A", "B", "C" or farther west than "C"?
• What location was traffic stopped at in the LEFT lane? Location "D", "F", "G" or farther west than "D"?
• Were there any cars approaching/within the intersection in the left lane (as in locations "D", "F" or "G") as Dad was turning?
• Were ther any vehicles in the left turn pocket at locations "I" or "J'? Or vehicles turning left onto Everett and already in location "H"?

I realize now that I may be complicating matters unnecessarily. Clearly, 21801 established two elements. (1) Left turns must be made with reasonable safety, and (2) after yielding the right of way to oncoming traffic... And clearly, the cop cited your Dad for failure to yield. This whole matte could literally turn on a matter of a couple of inches of where everybody was. So brace yourself for a big challenge if you intend on beating this.

And unless the cop was the last vehicle in line, that he was in the right lane, stopped behind traffic, there were no vehicles in positions "D", "F", "G" or none approaching from east of the intersection, then yeah, I could see how it would be tough to prove a violation.

Alternatively, if the cop was not the last car in the right lane, or if there were any vehicles in D, F or G, or even in H, I or J and your Dad went through his turn and became situated past location M, then he did fail to yield.

Speaking of position M, that, conceivably could have been his safety zone. He obviously cleared EASTbound traffic, and as long as there were no vehicles turning left from Garvey onto Everett, then he could have proceeded from the "Stop" location into the M location, and he should have held there, waiting for either WESTbound traffic to clear, or for someone to wave him in thereby giving up their right of way.

Even if the cop had decided to stop at C leaving location B clear, and/or another vehicle were top stop at G, leaving position F clear, that does not mean your Dad can turn and take either position B or position F. They simply may have stopped to avoid getting caught in the intersection. If, on the other hand, the driver in the left lane stopped at G, leaving F open, and then he waved you Dad in, then Dad can turn and take location F...

I read the VC and it says something about turning with vehicles approaching, but Everyone was practically at standstill waiting for green when he turned ... *there's no hazardous condition as far as he can see...

Right, it does say "approaching vehicles"; but it does fall short of being specific that those vehicles that are approaching need to be in the lane you're turning into for a violation to occur which essentially means that any WESTbound vehicle approaching the intersection has the right of way to BOTH left and right lanes, all while an approaching vehicle coming into the intersection from Everett, has to yield the right of way. It also falls short of being specific as far as "how close would a vehicle have to be to be considered "approaching"? Clearly, at low speeds, it would have to be fairly close, but even with that, how slow is slow and how close is close?

there's no hazardous condition as far as he can see...

I think it is safe to assume that the cop is not going to claim that your Dad almost hit someone or caused an accident; clearly, everyone was moving at slow speeds, but yielding the right of way is still required even at slow speeds. Then again, it is hard to assume we can see everything the cop saw.

can we literally attack the language????

You can try but I'm not seeing much leeway. Unless there is a claim that someone gave up their right of way and waved Dad in, the language isn't giving much simply because it isn't only a safety matter.

As far as fighting, i would like to be on the stand with him as an interpreter due to his limited English, instead of utilizing court house's interpreter... that way, i can provide some mental and emotional supports as well as coaching possibility...

I'm afraid you wil not be able to do any of that. You can certainly be there for him in support, mentally and emotionally, but you'll have to do so quietly and do it from behind that little swinging door. The coaching part is certainly a no-no while he is at the defendant's table. You are not a licensed attorney and are not allowed to coach, guide or give advice. If he has a need for an interpreter, he needs to let the court know at the arraignment, but certainly on the date he appears for trial and as soon as he gets in the courtroom (just let the bailiff know).

You might want to try a Trial By Declaration, first... That gives you the opportunity, with his permission to make his arguments for him, as long as he reviews it and signs it as if he has written it. If he loses that attempt, he can request a new trial where he can then appear in court and with the assistance of a court provided interpreter, he can take another try at beating it. This will also give him the opportunity to look at the officer's declaration which would give him an idea what the officer will testify to if it turns out that an in court trial, if he chooses to go that far.

Good luck!