Re: Did Judge Disqualify My Proof of Correction Incorrectly
Was the infraction marked as "correctable" or "non correctable" on the citation?
Here are a couple of paragraphs from the 2009 Uniform Bail Schedule:
Offenses Eligible for Correction
Under Vehicle Code section 40522, an officer arresting for violations specified in Vehicle Code section 40303.5 is required to specify the offense charged and note in a form approved by the Judicial Council that the charge shall be dismissed upon proof of correction. Certain offenses specified in Vehicle Code section 40303.5 are designated in the following schedule as potentially eligible for correction. The offenses designated in the schedule as potentially eligible for correction and those offenses specified by Vehicle Code section 40303.5 that are not contained in the schedule may be eligible for dismissal with proof of correction if the citing officer determines that none of the disqualifying conditions of Vehicle Code section 40610(b) exist. (See California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 726 [riding a motorcycle without wearing any helmet presents an “immediate safety hazard” when an officer makes that determination and issues a noncorrectable citation].) Those disqualifying conditions are present if an officer finds any of the following:
1. Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect;
2. The violation presents an immediate safety hazard;
3. The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.
If a citation does not indicate that an offense is eligible for correction, a court may presume that the offense is cited as noncorrectable. (See also California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 740.) Upon proof of correction of an alleged violation of section 12500 or 12951 or any violation cited pursuant to section 40610, Vehicle Code section 40611 authorizes courts to collect a $25 transaction fee for each violation. No bail amount shall be collected.
This has become a sort of a gray area recently (in 2008) after the CHP appealed to the higher court that the officer should have more discretion in marking a violation as correctable or not.
At this point, and in your case, the only recourse that you might have would be to appeal the court's ruling. However, one must keep in mind that the appeals process is in fact long, drawn out and frustrating.
I am right 97% of the time... Who cares about the other 4%!