What are Defenses to a No Turn on Red Violation, VC Section 22101(D)

[bern21]

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

I was cited for making a right turn (California Vehicle Code, Section 22101(D), No Turn on Red), although I could not see the posted signs due to their placement and the SUV in front of me that blocked my view. My car is a Hyundai Tiburon and I am a tall person. I could not view these high placed signs due to my view through the windshield and the vehicle in front of me (driven by a woman on her cell phone and who abruptly stopped short of the intersection to make a left turn, even though there was no traffic coming towards her, forcing me to be close behind her and blocking my view of the road and signs). The sign prohibited a right turn from 7:00am to 5:00pm, due to a religious school located near the intersection. There were no school signs and, due to where I entered the street with these signs, the distance was too close to read or even see the signs. They would be visible had I entered the street from a greater distance, but I entered the street from an alley very close to the intersection. This was an unfamiliar neighborhood for me. The officer was a motorcycle officer who was parked and had set up a pull-over area, as he was waiting for those who make the right turn. Obviously, this was a setup where he could get tickets written (the signs are hard to see). He also stated in the ticket that 3 signs controll the intersection, but there are only two. The third sign controls the alley that I came from. This sign prohibits turning into the alley, not out of it as I did. Can this error be used to dismiss the ticket? I will be going to trial next week and plan to contest the ticket, due to the circumstances of that day, bright sun, high signs, an SUV that blocked my view, no posting of a school zone, and the obvious setup for ticketing by a motorcycle officer who was parked and waiting for errors at that intersection by drivers who do not see the signs. My main defense is that I could not see the signs for the reasons mentioned above and that I did not disobey the signs, as I could not see them. The intent of section (D) seems to me to be the willful disobeying of the signs, and that not being able to see the signs due to circumstances deserves a dismissal of the charges. I would greatly appreciate advice as I do not believe that I willfully disobeyed the law and was caught in a well prepared and known trap that snared the drivers who miss the signs. I would greatly appreciate a reply prior to Moinday, when I must appear to defend myself.
Thank you,
B.L.

[Mr. Knowitall]

...I could not see the posted signs due to their placement...

What was wrong with their placement?

...and the SUV in front of me that blocked my view.

That part won't help.

...forcing me to be close behind her and blocking my view of the road and signs).

Following too closely is not a defense, either.

He also stated in the ticket that 3 signs controll the intersection, but there are only two. The third sign controls the alley that I came from. This sign prohibits turning into the alley, not out of it as I did. Can this error be used to dismiss the ticket?

So you're stating that only two of the three signs are relevant to your ticket? If the signage is proper, the two signs are sufficient.

...no posting of a school zone...

How is that relevant?

...and the obvious setup for ticketing by a motorcycle officer who was parked and waiting for errors at that intersection by drivers who do not see the signs.

How is that relevant?

[bern21]

Obviously, you do not know it all. Fortunately, an attorney has advised me that reasonable doubt, as indicated by the circumstances, should be sufficient for a dismissal. I do not believe that you understood my writing at all. Sad.

[free9man]

Obviously, you do not know it all.

Well he can only speak to what you wrote. What he said was relevant to what you wrote.

Fortunately, an attorney has advised me that reasonable doubt, as indicated by the circumstances, should be sufficient for a dismissal. I do not believe that you understood my writing at all. Sad.

Then hire the attorney and go for it. Honestly, unless you shared more information with the attorney than us, I don't see any reasonable doubt jumping outta that mess. It's hard for anyone to understand what you wrote because a. it's just a giant wall of text with no sentence or paragraph structure and b. you included so much extraneous and irrelevant information.

[bern21]

Thank you for the reply, free9man. Out of curiosity, are you a lawyer who practices in California? And, do you have trouble reading English?
Regards,
B.L.

[That Guy]

Obviously, you do not know it all. Fortunately, an attorney has advised me that reasonable doubt, as indicated by the circumstances, should be sufficient for a dismissal. I do not believe that you understood my writing at all. Sad.

Oh you can pout all you want... Unfortunately, it is difficult to read what you posted with it all being in one paragraph, but no, it is not difficult to understand as it is full of what I call "fluff", now that is "sad". VC 22101 is pretty simple:

22101.

(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.
(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device.
(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.

There is actually very little room for any sort of "reasonable doubt" in this case;

The sign is either posted or it isn't...

It is either visible to a reasonably observant person or it isn't...

Is it an "official traffic control device"? VC 41101 says it is...

Was it placed as required pursuant to subdivision (c)? from your description, it sounds like a perfect fit...

Did you make the turn while the light is red and in violation of the direction of the sign? The officer will testify that you did...

Could the officer have cited you for a different code section, one that would carry a fine of $480 instead of the lesser fine of $234 or so? Yes, VC 21453(a).

Does it seem like he's given you a break by citing you for the cheaper code section? It sure does...

Would the judge know of the strong likelihood that the officer gave you such a break? Anyone whose familiar with the vehicle code would know that...

Knowing that you have no legitimate defense, would that piss off the judge for you wasting the court's time citing a list of "fluff" as a means to justify your being inattentive or careless to the direction of the sign? You can count on it...

Are there any mitigating circumstances that would allow for any leeway whatsoever? Nope, this is one case that should have gone straight to traffic school (if you were eligible). And who knows if the judge will allow it after trial!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for the reply, free9man. Out of curiosity, are you a lawyer who practices in California?

We really should have an I.Q. test that people can take before they're allowed to join. Ignant fools like you need not apply!

And, do you have trouble reading English?

For someone who couldn't follow the direction of a sign that stated: "No Turn On Red", you are not one to talk about trouble reading OR understanding English!

[free9man]

Thank you for the reply, free9man. Out of curiosity, are you a lawyer who practices in California?

I am neither a lawyer nor am I in Cali. I don't have to be to answer your question. All one needs is an understanding of reasonable doubt, which I do have. What you have here, if I may slip in some military jargon, is a big ole cloud of chaff you hope will confuse the missile. I'm confidant it will not, as TG has explained to you.

And, do you have trouble reading English?
Regards,
B.L.

I have no trouble reading or understanding properly formatted English. Your verbal diarrhea was not properly formatted and full of irrelevant garbage. Makes picking out the important stuff a quest, which many of the volunteers here will not embark upon. Kudos to TG for taking one for the team on that. You should stick only to the relevant facts and present them in an organized manner. Can you imagine what would happen if you slapped that in a TBD?

For someone who couldn't follow the direction of a sign that stated: "No Turn On Red", you are not one to talk about trouble reading OR understanding English!

Thanks for helpin' me 'splain it to him TG.

[That Guy]

Thanks for helpin' me 'splain it to him TG.

Its no prob... Oops, I mean: 'snow Problem my friend!

You've taken a few during the couple of "battles with ignorance" that I've had. Makes it a privilege to be allowed the opportunity to payback! And to do so against someone who clearly overstepped their bounds, doubles its worth!

[bern21]

To the naysayers and losers, above, I won my case with that letter. Sadly, you fellows do not know even a tiny bit about the Law, reading English, comprehending the facts, and when to keep your mouth shut. The judge loved my explanation and the cop almost crapped his pants when she said, "Not Guilty and your bail is refunded."
Later, losers,
WINNER

Hey, That Guy, my tested IQ is 165, and you, too, are ignorant of the law and cannot read. Try doing something useful with your life instead of lurking here in your ignorance.
WINNER

Regards,
BL

- - - Updated - - -

PS I did not use a lawyer, but presented the evidence to the judge myself. 'Reasonable Doubt' is not that hard to prove if you know how to write and speak. BL

[That Guy]

Bern, BERN... WAKE UP DUFUS... YOU'RE DREAMING!!!

I won my case with that letter.

Sure you did!!!

Of course with your high IQ, and my ignorance, and "that letter" nobody else knows about, you're still not making much sense.

Hey, That Guy, my tested IQ is 165

You mean 1 +65 = 66 ... Not 165!

where a real lawyer will give you advice for free and you will get tips on how to win.

Right... Because lawyers who are actually licensed to practice law are going to spend their time giving dumbasses like you free advice when they could be charging $250 an hour!

Seriously... Thing about how stupid you seem just typing that part alone!