CVC 21461(A) - No Turn on Red

[wildmage22]

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

I picked up my mom from the airport in the morning in Los Angeles, and took the offramp from 405-N onto Culver Blvd at 8:30am.

You can view the intersection on Google street view here, and zooming out you can see the intersection (although it is still under construction from the satellite view).

I stopped at the red light at the intersection. Checked for oncoming cars, took a right turn on red, drove 2 blocks and got pulled over and cited for turning on red, not following the sign, CVC 21461(a)

You wont see it in the google street view, but according to the officer they were added 4 months ago. Wow, and I go through this intersection very regularly and that's a long time to not see the sign.

What's particularly frustrating about this is that I had been pulled over for the exact same offense under the exact same circumstances and given a warning. It was an intersection I drove through regularly, sign was recently added, never noticed because you drive unconsciously through the streets you know. After this incident, I was laser focused on picking up these types of signs.

But they used different signs in each case saying the exact same thing!

According to the California sign chart, R13A for my warning stop, and R10-11 for my recent citation. The latter is a small novella compared to the crystal clarity of R13A.

Anyway, enough of my belly-aching. I recognize that I'm probably going to lose this one, but I want to mount whatever defense I can. So I'm going to schedule a court date, plead not guilty and mount a defense.

That 21461 code is pretty handy for cops. They just have to say that you violated whatever the sign says without having to worry about any particular traffic rules and regulations. "The sign said this, you did the opposite!"

I can't really contest that the sign was not clearly visible. (It was, there were two saying the same thing.) Although I was tuned in to detect a different type of sign, and it's dangerous to read while driving! That doesn't sound like a defense.

The cop was posted on Globe Ave (seen on Google) waiting for people to make this mistake. I think he had a clear view of the red light and anyone who would drive into the intersection from the offramp. Heck, I saw him as I drove right past and felt thankful that he was looking out for traffic violators, and was puzzled when he pulled up behind me.

So, can you think of any angles for defense here?

- Hank

[That Guy]

That 21461 code is pretty handy for cops. They just have to say that you violated whatever the sign says without having to worry about any particular traffic rules and regulations. "The sign said this, you did the opposite!"

And it sound to me like you did in fact do the opposite of what the sign says. As for the 21461 being handy, count your blessings that he didn't cite you for 21453(c). Had he done that, your fine would have doubled (approximately $221 for CVC-21461 versus $445 for CVC-21453(c)).

In all honesty, and unless you're counting on him not showing up (and that's a slim chance), you're wasting your time as well as the court's time by contesting it.

If you're eligible for traffic school, you would be better off paying the fine, taking the guaranteed option and chalking it up as a (more expensive) lesson (than the one when you received a warning). If you do contest it, by the way, you may get one of those judges that do not allow for traffic school after a trial.

Ultimately, the choice is yours.

it's dangerous to read while driving! That doesn't sound like a defense.

It's dangerous to read a book or a magazine... But its more dangerous (and at times more expensive) NOT to read traffic control signs.

That doesn't sound like a defense.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't!

[That Guy]

As for the 21461 being handy, count your blessings that he didn't cite you for 21453(c). Had he done that, your fine would have doubled (approximately $221 for CVC-21461 versus $445 for CVC-21453(c)).

I'm gonna take this part back. He had the option to cite you for 21461(a) or 21453(b) (not 21453(c)) and the fine would have been the same... Approximately $221...