Unfair Fix-It Ticket

[mcado67]

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

Husband in new car (dealer registration still in view in front screen) was stopped and given fix it ticket. Initially officer said he didn't have a transponder visible - true - it was in the car but not stuck to the windscreen and he showed it to the officer who then said - well... ok but always make sure it's visible in future - then decided that he wanted to stop him for anything so said well... you don't have any license plates on your car. Now the fact that my husband had the dealer registration still valid and in the front screen (he didn't even look at this) to my mind means that this was irrelevant - technically his registration WAS in view. Actually my husband had recently received his plates but they were not fixed on the car because I needed to take the original plates to DMV so I could collect the personalized plates I had ordered for a gift for him.

So - he was given a fix it ticket anyway in spite of the fact that I don't think the officer had grounds to do so legally. Then yesterday we get a court document stating that he has to pay either $309 for traffic school or post $227 bail and go to court. This doesn't sound either right or fair to me.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

[Mr. Knowitall]

This resulted from what? The failure to address the fix-it ticket in a timely manner, and submit proof to the court that you had fixed the problem?

[chuckycheese]

That sounds extremely petty but, you're in California....and I'll bet it's going to get far worse.

[cdwjava]

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

Husband in new car (dealer registration still in view in front screen) was stopped and given fix it ticket. Initially officer said he didn't have a transponder visible - true - it was in the car but not stuck to the windscreen and he showed it to the officer who then said - well... ok but always make sure it's visible in future - then decided that he wanted to stop him for anything so said well... you don't have any license plates on your car. Now the fact that my husband had the dealer registration still valid and in the front screen (he didn't even look at this) to my mind means that this was irrelevant - technically his registration WAS in view. Actually my husband had recently received his plates but they were not fixed on the car because I needed to take the original plates to DMV so I could collect the personalized plates I had ordered for a gift for him.

So - he was given a fix it ticket anyway in spite of the fact that I don't think the officer had grounds to do so legally. Then yesterday we get a court document stating that he has to pay either $309 for traffic school or post $227 bail and go to court. This doesn't sound either right or fair to me.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks.

What was the code section on the citation?

How long had he had the vehicle from the dealer?

The dealer registration is only valid for a short period of time and still doesn't prevent you from being stopped as it is folded over and looks like ANY piece of white paper. And, yes, bad guys have folded blank pieces of white paper in the front windshield corners to try and avoid being stopped in stolen or wanted vehicles, too.

I'm curious what section he was cited for ... not having plates is different from registration and both can be "fix it" tickets.

- Carl

[mcado67]

No delay in getting fix-it done - he had until May to do so.

I looked up the court records and it appears that the police office stated that he was "evading" paying a toll which is absolutely untrue. It's true that being a new car he hadn't fitted the transponder to his windscreen but he usualy has it on his sun visor and it records the toll perfectly well. Of course on this occasion for some reason it didn't register and because he ddn't have plates and the cop did him for "evading" the toll.

I can prove that the transponder was working about 9 minutes before the incident. I can also prove that we registered his new car with the tolll road account as soon as we bought it. It seems really unfair that just because his transponder didn't work that time (and I've had that happen to me on different toll roads) and he didn't have his plates on (for a valid reason) that he is given this traffic school ticket for $309 when if he HAD deliberately driven throuh a toll plaza and the Toll Roads caught him and fined him, the fine would have been about $53!!! That's 600% more than if he really HAD deliberately evaded the toll. How can that be fair? Talk about a revenue channel from tickets!!

It's not that I can't pay - it's that it seems unfair and very petty of the officer, when we have had a toll road account since 2002 to accuse my husband of deliberately evading the toll when he wasn't. Worth fighting or just pay up and shut up?

[cdwjava]

No delay in getting fix-it done - he had until May to do so.

What makes you think he had until May? You DO realize that the court date is not the time frame you have to fix the violation, right?

I looked up the court records and it appears that the police office stated that he was "evading" paying a toll which is absolutely untrue.

What section was he cited for?

It's true that being a new car he hadn't fitted the transponder to his windscreen but he usualy has it on his sun visor and it records the toll perfectly well. Of course on this occasion for some reason it didn't register and because he ddn't have plates and the cop did him for "evading" the toll.

Then he may be able to raise the defense that it was a malfunction. Not a big problem. But, based upon the device's failure to register the toll it would seem that the citation for that offense was issued based upon probable cause to believe the offense had been committed. A citation does not require absolute proof, only probable cause.

I can prove that the transponder was working about 9 minutes before the incident. I can also prove that we registered his new car with the tolll road account as soon as we bought it.

Then you will probably prevail at trial.

It's not that I can't pay - it's that it seems unfair and very petty of the officer, when we have had a toll road account since 2002 to accuse my husband of deliberately evading the toll when he wasn't. Worth fighting or just pay up and shut up?

The officer has no idea that your husband has been paying the toll for years, and likely doesn't care. From his perspective someone without proper plates on the car evaded a toll. Thus, he stopped and issued a citation.

He is free to fight the citation all he wishes. Since you have not posted the sections he was cited for, we can't really speculate on any defense or how/when the violation needs to be fixed. Without the code section(s) for which he has been cited, there is no way to determine the elements of the offense.

- Carl

[mcado67]

Hmm... I could have sworn that on his fix-it ticket it said the May date was the date by which it had to be fixed. How would he know when it had to be fixed by if that's not the date?

These were what he was cited for:
23302(b) VC I Evading electronic toll charge
5200(a) VC I Display vehicle front and rear license plates

[cdwjava]

Hmm... I could have sworn that on his fix-it ticket it said the May date was the date by which it had to be fixed. How would he know when it had to be fixed by if that's not the date?

The only date on the citation would have been the court date. I suppose the officer COULD have written a "repair by ..." date, but that would certainly be the exception to the rule.

These were what he was cited for:
23302(b) VC I Evading electronic toll charge
5200(a) VC I Display vehicle front and rear license plates

For the 5200(a) his defense should be relatively easy ... if it is a new car and no plates have yet been issued, then he is not required to display them. However, if it has been beyond the permit period (90 days, I believe - I haven't looked it up and am in a rush at the moment) then he will need plates and valid registration. He needs to look into getting those plates.

5200. (a) When two license plates are issued by the department for
use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which
they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear.

And the toll evasion charge he will likely have to show a pattern of payment, explain as you have the previous properly functioning, etc.

(b) For vehicular crossings and toll highways that uses electronic
toll collection as the only method of paying tolls or other charges,
it is prima facie evidence of a violation of this section for any
person to enter the vehicular crossing or toll highway without a
transponder or other electronic toll payment device associated with a
valid Automatic Vehicle Identification account with a balance
sufficient to pay those tolls. If a transponder or other electronic
toll payment device is used to pay tolls or other charges due, the
device shall be located in, or on the vehicle in a location so as to
be visible for the purpose of enforcement at all times when the
vehicle is located on the vehicular crossing or toll highway. Where
required by the operator of a vehicular crossing or toll highway,
this requirement applies even if the operator offers free travel or
nontoll accounts to certain classes of users.

- Carl

[mcado67]

An update for those of you who are interested.

I was so incensed about this that I did in fact write a letter of defence to the court (my husband's mum passed away the same week he was due in court so he was unable to attend.) Sent with it evidence of plates, registration of car and plates with Toll Roads, etc. Got a really nice letter back stating that he would be getting a full refund (minus $25 for fix-it ticket) so it was worth fighting.

Thanks for your advice.

[cdwjava]

Thanks for the update, and I'm glad it worked out. Though I am surprised that they accepted a letter from YOU and not from him.

My condolences and prayers for your husband's loss. Been there myself a few years back.

- Carl