No Right Turn Between 7-9AM in California

[Blueberry Kitten]

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

I have a question, please any help will be appreciated!
I am employed as a live-out nanny for this woman who lives in a condo complex. Now to enter the complex, you must turn right at the corner and proceed up the hill. (That is the only entrance to her complex, there is no other entry). Now since the complex entrance is also located right off a major freeway, many people previously used the entrance to make illegal U-Turns after turning right into the entrance, thus disrupting the road. In other words, they would come off the freeway, make a right turn into the complex, then instead of going up the hill where the condos are, they would just make an illegal u-turn and go back on the freeway. The residents lobbied the city and a sign is there, saying NO RIGHT TURN 7-9AM, MON-FRI. Well my boss had told me why the sign was there and said that residents and guests/visitors could enter, she told me to just tell the cop (if there was one) that I was an employee of a resident in the complex. Well one morning, right after I made the turn into the complex, I was stopped and cited. I told the officer I was entering the complex to go to work, not to make a u-turn (which is why the signs are posted) and that I was a domestic employer. He asked for proof, and I didn't have any on me, so I was cited....$168.00. I am guessing the officer had heard many stories from others and couldn't tell if I was lying or not.

Anyway, I want to contest the ticket. I did make the right turn, I admit I did. However, the sign is posted with the intent to cite those who make illegal u-turns, not to cite a person going into the complex as a visitor or resident. I sent a copy of my paycheck from the day I was cited, with my employer's name/address clearly on the check to prove I had a legitimate reason to enter since I was going to work.
But are there exceptions to the rule? If a sign is intended to prevent certain activity from occurring, yet the intent of the violator was not to engage in such activity and the person cited has proof that they were there legitimately, do I have a case?

For the record, I have a 6 1/2 perfect driving record.
Sorry so long, but I just wanted to be as clear as possible.

I would appreciate your help on this. Right now, I am waiting on an answer for a trial by declaration, but don't know if I have a chance at winning!

[cdwjava]

Sadly, what the resident told you will not be a defense to the sign violation unless you were cited under a local ordinance that allows for a residential exception.

I suspect you were cited for CVC 21461(a):

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey
a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation
approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or
maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate
and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic
ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic
ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by
lawful authority of a public body or official.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations
under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or
to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted
pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

I suspect that you will not prevail absent a sign also indicating that residents or their employees are exempt. Since your defense also includes admitting to the violation, I am afraid this is not going anywhere.

Unless you can challenge the placement of the sign as being unlawful, you appear to be guilty of the violation.

You should consider taking traffic school ... AND taking another route to that particular location.

- Carl

[Blueberry Kitten]

Thank you so much for the reply Carl.
I appreciate it.

I forgot to state the code I was cited for. It may not make much of a difference, but I was cited for code 22101d.

Also, how else could I enter the complex to go to work? That is the only entrance. Do you think I can use a necessity defense?

Again, any help would be great.

[cdwjava]

"Uh oh" for the officer! No donut!

The section you were cited for covers signs and controls at an intersection. Assuming that this "no right turn sign" is NOT in an intersection and is, instead, into a complex (on to private property) in mid block somewhere, then you may be able to win by default based solely upon the improper section cited.

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.

And, the definition of intersection:

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongation
of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary
lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at
approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles
traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come
in conflict.

Without seeing this location, I can't be sure, but generally violating a traffic control device will be cited as CVC 21461 as it has no real restriction, whereas 22101 requires the presence of an intersection of public roads.

- Carl

[EWYLTJ]

"Uh oh" for the officer! No donut!

Now that's funny!!

[Blueberry Kitten]

Thanks for the advice again Carl...and I loved the donut joke. I wonder if anyone has ever offered an officer a donut to get out of a ticket??!! Anyway, never mind.

The ticket states that conditions were foggy, can that be a defense as well? Also, forgive me for my ditziness, but I was wondering if an intersection has to be only a 4-way stop? Because this entrance is not at a four-way, it is just a road off another road.

Thanks again.

[cdwjava]

The ticket states that conditions were foggy, can that be a defense as well? Also, forgive me for my ditziness, but I was wondering if an intersection has to be only a 4-way stop? Because this entrance is not at a four-way, it is just a road off another road.

Thanks again.

An intersection does not have to be a fourway stop. And if the "road" onto the property is not publicly maintained, then it is a private drive (aka "driveway") and not an intersection.

Again, I'd have to see the scene to be sure that it does not apply, but I have a sneaking suspicion the officer cited the wrong section.

- Carl