Cited for Failure to Obey a Regulatory Sign, VC 21461(A)

My wife dropped off the kids at school at Diamond Bar, CA, at a no stopping zone and get cited with 21461 (A), Failure to Obey a sign. I would like to know if she should only be cited for a parking ticket instead of a moving infraction ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

My wife dropped off the kids at school at Diamond Bar, CA, at a no stopping zone and get cited with 21461 (A), Failure to Obey a sign. I would like to know if she should only be cited for a parking ticket instead of a moving infraction ?

Regards

---

Good question, however, the answer does not necessarily provide her with a valid defense. In other words, going to court and qrguing that "I should have been cited for something else" is not going to work.

With that being said, and assuming that she was indeed cited for violation a "no stopping" sign, then she can cite VC section 21461, subsection (b) which states:

VC 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).

A "no stopping/standing/parking" violation is in fact listed under "Chapter 9 (commencing with section 22500)" and therefore 21461 (a) does not apply.

Easy dismissal!

Good luck!

Great, we will try that defense. BTW, can we use the argument through mail instead of showing up at the hearing. Thank you so much.

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

Great, we will try that defense. BTW, can we use the argument through mail instead of showing up at the hearing. Thank you so much.

---

Was this citation issued by "parking enforcement" (doubtfull) or by a deputy sheriff/police officer?

Either way, the answer to your question is more than likely "yes". Just to be sure, she should check read the instructions which are usually listed on the back of the citation.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Was this citation issued by "parking enforcement" (doubtfull) or by a deputy sheriff/police officer?

Either way, the answer to your question is more than likely "yes". Just to be sure, she should check read the instructions which are usually listed on the back of the citation.

---

It was a deputy who issued the ticket. She was just worry that in case we failed, she cannot go to traffic school afterward. I believe once you fail the Trial By Declaration, you still can go to court to ask for traffic school. What is our chance of being successful in fighting this ticket, 90% or higher ? Again thank you so much for all your help.

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

It was a deputy who issued the ticket. She was just worry that in case we failed, she cannot go to traffic school afterward. I believe once you fail the Trial By Declaration, you still can go to court to ask for traffic school. What is our chance of being successful in fighting this ticket, 90% or higher ? Again thank you so much for all your help.

---

Since the citation was issued by a deputy sheriff then this matter will most certainly be adjudicated in court (rather than via a dispute with parking enforcement) and it does qualify for a TBD.

However, going the TBD route will require her to post bail (in an amount equal to the fine amount (which is refunded in cases where a "not guilty" finding is reached)), request the TBD forms, complete her declaration, submitted to court in a timely manner and then wait a month or so for a decision...

The better/simpler alternative, in my opinion, would be for her to appear in court (for the arraignment) on the date shown on the citation, when her case is called, she should simply walk up with a printed copy of 21461 (with subsection (b) highlighted), tell the judge that the citation was issued for "stopping in a 'no stopping zone'", yet 21461(b) clearly states that 21461(a) does not apply in this case, and then move for a dismissal. She might get the easy dismissal at the arraignment.

If the judge were to refuse to dismiss at the arraignment, then she's back to square one, at which time she can request a TBD, and start worrying about traffic school eligibility and the success rate of what I believe to be a solid irrefutable argument.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Since the citation was issued by a deputy sheriff then this matter will most certainly be adjudicated in court (rather than via a dispute with parking enforcement) and it does qualify for a TBD.

However, going the TBD route will require her to post bail (in an amount equal to the fine amount (which is refunded in cases where a "not guilty" finding is reached)), request the TBD forms, complete her declaration, submitted to court in a timely manner and then wait a month or so for a decision...

The better/simpler alternative, in my opinion, would be for her to appear in court (for the arraignment) on the date shown on the citation, when her case is called, she should simply walk up with a printed copy of 21461 (with subsection (b) highlighted), tell the judge that the citation was issued for "stopping in a 'no stopping zone'", yet 21461(b) clearly states that 21461(a) does not apply in this case, and then move for a dismissal. She might get the easy dismissal at the arraignment.

If the judge were to refuse to dismiss at the arraignment, then she's back to square one, at which time she can request a TBD, and start worrying about traffic school eligibility and the success rate of what I believe to be a solid irrefutable argument.

---

I just look at the citation again, he did not mention stopping in no stopping zone, just simply say 21461(a) - fail to follow sign. I wonder if the judge would believe me that she was cited for stopping at no stopping sign without the cop there to testify. Maybe I can take pictures of the location to show the no-stopping sign and bring that to the arraignment ?

I had virtually the same citation, and used this strategy... (I'll take a flier and guess this is where ThatGuy recollected this 'easy dismissal')

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101985

I was ultimately successful, but the TBWD (ie "by mail") was 'guilty'... this was due to a corrupt judge just rubber stamping every case "guilty". Why do I say this? My TBD was exactly the case I put on in court.

PM me an email and I will share my TBWD.

It is CRITICAL for the officer to say "she disobeyed a No Parking" sign. It is also critical that you walk the court through each element.

GL. Courts REALLY hate this kind of defense- they figure "person was guilty, why let them off for a technicality?"... the point is one is a moving violation with a point, parking has no points.

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

I wonder if the judge would believe me that she was cited for stopping at no stopping sign without the cop there to testify. Maybe I can take pictures of the location to show the no-stopping sign and bring that to the arraignment ?

---

Just a quick side note... This is your wife's citation... So SHE is the one required to appear at the arraignment; SHE is the one that would be talking to the judge; SHE is the one who would be presenting evidence (the pictures)... Unless you're an attorney representing her, the you have no legal standing to handle anything on her behalf.

Agree with That Guy. YOU can work on the TBD, but once in court, the judge will not let you speak, she will need to do it. This is an easy one, just follow the TBN.

To the issue of "the officer didn't write the no parking on the ticket"... he WILL have to say SOMETHING to the judge (in the offcier written declaration) which says "she didn't follow the ____ sign" .

Your argument will say "the officers' TR235 will state that I was either parked at a no parking sign, or stopped at a no stopping sign. Since both of these signs are defined as "Parking signs" under the R8 series of signs in the Cal MUTCD, this act constitutes a violation of CVC25505, which pursuant to 21461(b) cannot be cited under 21461(a)." (or similar)

BTW, I emailed it to you email- check your spam filters.

A

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Agree with That Guy. YOU can work on the TBD, but once in court, the judge will not let you speak, she will need to do it. This is an easy one, just follow the TBN.

To the issue of "the officer didn't write the no parking on the ticket"... he WILL have to say SOMETHING to the judge (in the offcier written declaration) which says "she didn't follow the ____ sign" .

Your argument will say "the officers' TR235 will state that I was either parked at a no parking sign, or stopped at a no stopping sign. Since both of these signs are defined as "Parking signs" under the R8 series of signs in the Cal MUTCD, this act constitutes a violation of CVC25505, which pursuant to 21461(b) cannot be cited under 21461(a)." (or similar)

BTW, I emailed it to you email- check your spam filters.

A

---

Hi


CVC 22505 says

The Department of Transportation with respect to
highways under its jurisdiction.......

In areas where, in its opinion, stopping, standing, or parking
is dangerous to those using the highway or where the stopping,
standing, or parking of vehicles would unduly interfere with the free
movement of traffic thereon.

Does highways really mean any road since this one is more like a residential street. I also received your email. It was indeed in the junk folder.

On the other hand, 22507 is a bit more closely resemblan my wife's situation:

22507. (a) Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution,
prohibit or restrict the stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles,
including, but not limited to, vehicles that are six feet or more in
height (including any load thereon) within 100 feet of any
intersection, on certain streets or highways, or portions thereof,
during all or certain hours of the day.

Regards

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

Does highways really mean any road since this one is more like a residential street.

---

Highway is defined as (CVC 360): "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Highway is defined as (CVC 360): "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

---

What is the next step she's found guilty by TBD ? Request for a trial in front of a judge ? Can she still asking for traffic school if found guilty then ?

Regards

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

What is the next step she's found guilty by TBD ? Request for a trial in front of a judge ? Can she still asking for traffic school if found guilty then ?

Regards

---

Next step is trial de novo, or in front of a judge.

Personally I didn't care about traffic school, I felt so strongly that I was going to take it to appeals if necessary.... didn't need to.

It is up to the judge to decide if you can still take school...you can call the court clerk and ask if there is a policy on this- first check on the court website, sometimes those details are posted.

A

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

Next step is trial de novo, or in front of a judge.

Personally I didn't care about traffic school, I felt so strongly that I was going to take it to appeals if necessary.... didn't need to.

It is up to the judge to decide if you can still take school...you can call the court clerk and ask if there is a policy on this- first check on the court website, sometimes those details are posted.

A

---

Our argument basically said she violated either section 22505b or 22507a, both belong to Chapter 9.
Just got the verdict, guilty. Looks like trial de novo is the next step.

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

Our argument basically said she violated either section 22505b or 22507a, both belong to Chapter 9.
Just got the verdict, guilty. Looks like trial de novo is the next step.

---

You should have your wife contact the court clerk to request a copy of the officer's declaration. Once you have that in hand, redact all personal info, scan it as an image file, upload it to an image hosting website (imageshack.com or photobucket.com ... etc) and post the link to it here.

My wife went to court and ask for the officer's declaration, they said he did not submit one. Basically, the judge just rubber stamp the TBD as guilty !!

Quote:

---

Quoting sonhox

---

My wife went to court and ask for the officer's declaration, they said he did not submit one. Basically, the judge just rubber stamp the TBD as guilty !!

---

So what happened with this? I'd have written a letter to the judge asking him to dismiss the case, file a judicial complaint....

Quote:

---

Quoting adam_

---

So what happened with this? I'd have written a letter to the judge asking him to dismiss the case, file a judicial complaint....

---

Went to court today, all prepare, however the officer did not show up, case dismissed. Thank you all for helping out, we learned a lot through this whole thing.

Congrats...