Violation of Right Turn Only Sign, VC 21461(A) Citation

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

The driveway of the public school is a highway

---

That's arguable. You must have missed my earlier post above:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

A roadway thus cannot exist without an underlying highway. And the "road" where that sign is is NOT a highway, because a parking lot is not a "way or place...for purposes of vehicular travel"; it's for the opposite, call it 'vehicular storage.' Vehicles traveling on the street do not use that parking lot route as, say, another lane unless their purpose is picking up/dropping off/parking (and not vehicular travel).

---

Which is supported by:

Quote:

---

Quoting quirkyquark

---

Since the 2006 edition, the CA MUTCD however has defined intersection by including the above definition and then stating this exception:

Quote:

---

Quoting CA MUTCD 2006 and later

---

(b) the junction of an alley or driveway with a roadway or highway shall not constitute an intersection.

---

---

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Such an admonition isn't really of any merit. In fact, the officer and you are both wrong on this. "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. The driveway of the public school is a highway

---

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron re the definition of "highway". Quirky, you simply dismissed the "of whatever nature" and that driveway is a "place of whatever nature", it is "publicly maintained" in that is a public school parking lot... and since entry and exit are not restricted, it is "open to the public"... Lastly, where do I find the definition for "vehicular storage"... Seriously, that driveway looks like its a prime target for vehicular travel!!!

I don't know whether the defendant was able to establish what authority installed the sign or not.... And i really can't imagine what would have taken an hour to present discuss or argue... But let me put a few of the issues raised hee to bed...

For one, and in addition to the city, county or even if we were to stretch, the state possibly being the regulatory authority to istall that sign, it is also possible, believe it or not, that the school board could have authorized it. You can read the entire code section here "V C Section 21113 Driving or Parking on Public Grounds" but I'll only quote the relevant part:

Quote:

---

Quoting CVC 21113

---

(c) When any governing board, legislative body, or officer permits public traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds under their control then, except for those conditions imposed or regulations enacted by the governing board, legislative body, or officer applicable to the traffic, all the provisions of this code relating to traffic upon the highways shall be applicable to the traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds.

---

So even if you're not buying the correct definition of a "highway", ^that^ says that even if you consider it to be a driveway and not a highway, rules of the road on a highway still apply.

So if it is a driveway then, and in reference to the red dot on the street there... Even if it was a solid yellow or a double solid yellow, it would not be illegal to cross it driving into or out of a driveway. So the right turn only sign is not relevant to the road makings when exiting a driveway!

Quote:

---

Quoting CVC 21460.

---

(a) When double parallel solid lines are in place, no person driving a vehicle shall drive to the left thereof, except as permitted in this section.
(b) When the double parallel lines, one of which is broken, are in place, no person driving a vehicle shall drive to the left thereof, except as follows:

(1) That the driver on that side of the roadway in which the broken line is in place may cross over the double line or drive to the left thereof when overtaking or passing other vehicles.
(2) As provided in Section 21460.5.

(c) Either of the markings as specified in subdivision (a) or (b) does not prohibit a driver from crossing the marking when (1) turning to the left at any intersection or into or out of a driveway or private road, or (2) making a U-turn under the rules governing that turn, and either of the markings shall be disregarded when authorized signs have been erected designating offcenter traffic lanes as permitted under Section 21657.
(d) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines described in this section when the markers are placed in accordance with standards established by the Department of Transportation.

---

Back to your appeal for a second, without really knowing what was stated, by whom during the entire hearing, it will be extremely difficult to advise you whether you have sufficient grounds or not. Remember, appeals are not an option simply because you don't like the verdict. You'd have to present the appellate with the same evidence, a record of the testimony, no new evidence will be reviewed and no new arguments will be heard, but you'll also have to convince them that judicial error was committed, or that the verdict was unfair... etc. And the burden is on you to prove your claim. Quirky keeps saying "its easy" as his way of not losing motivatiom he needs to get through his, but they do require a lot of work!

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Quirky, you simply dismissed the "of whatever nature" and that driveway is a "place of whatever nature", it is "publicly maintained" in that is a public school parking lot... and since entry and exit are not restric ted, it is "open to the public"... Lastly, where do I find the definition for "vehicular storage"... Seriously, that driveway looks like its a prime target for vehicular travel!!!
...
So even if you're not buying the correct definition of a "highway", ^that^ says that even if you consider it to be a driveway and not a highway, rules of the road on a highway still apply.

---

The issue here is not whether there was a prima facie violation of VC 21460, but whether the underlying sign was an official traffic device or not.

Precedent says that a public parking lot is NOT a highway as defined by Section 360:

Quote:

---

Quoting People v. Lopez, 197 Cal. App. 3d 93 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1987

---

Section 360's definition of "highway" does not expressly include parking lots.
...
The fact a parking lot may include some areas available for driving does not make the parking lot a highway.
...
Section 21113, subdivision (c), specifically provides Vehicle Code provisions relating to traffic are applicable to publicly controlled parking lots. This portion of section 21113, subdivision (c), would be unnecessary if Vehicle Code section 360's definition of "highway" included parking lots. We must presume the Legislature intended this portion of section 21113, subdivision (c), to have some meaning and perform some useful function.

---

Now, keeping in mind that "driveway" has meant different things through the ages, here's an older case:

Quote:

---

Quoting Behling v. County of Los Angeles, 139 Cal. App. 2d 684 - Cal: Court of Appeals 1956

---

In 1931, an amendment was adopted setting forth in substance that the term highway or public highway should apply to and include driveways and paths upon the grounds of universities, colleges and institutions "when and during such time or times as such driveways and paths are open to public traffic by permission of the governing board or officer charged with the control and direction of any such university, college or institution." (Stats. 1931, ch. 1026, p. 2102.)

In 1935, the Legislature adopted a Vehicle Code (Stats. 1935, ch. 27, pp. 93-98) and at that time set forth the definition of a street or highway as follows (p. 98):

" 'Street' or 'Highway.' 'Street' or 'highway' is a way or place of whatever nature open to the use of the public as a matter of right for purposes of vehicular travel."

In 1937, the definition was amended to its present form by adding the words "publicly maintained and" and striking from the 1935 definition the words "as a matter of right." (Stats. 1937, ch. 282, p. 617.) There have apparently been no amendments or changes in the section since 1937.

It is apparent that the Legislature had in mind a limitation or restriction in the definition of what constitutes a highway, otherwise the phrase as added in 1935 and altered in 1937 would not have been used.

---

Edit: As my original post noted, the first two arguments based on the language of 21460 are certainly "better"; this above argument is in no way guaranteed.

Edit2: After looking at the overhead view and the Websters' definition of driveway, I agree with TG that no matter the technicalities, it is going to be very hard to argue that the parking lot exit in question is not a highway. If you raised the 21460 issues during your trial, you can appeal on that basis.

1) Regarding the appeal...Is it enough to quote the definition of the R41 "Right Turn Only" from the 1996 traffic manual. "The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory." The officer has stated under oath that the parking lot is NOT an intersection. How can I be convicted of disobeying a traffic sign that has been improperly placed? How can I be convicted of turning left at an intersection when I was not even IN an intersection?

2) Also, the regular commissioner was on vacation on the day I was convicted. They had a local lawyer substitute. I forget the title he was given. Prior to the swearing in, all of the defendants were individually asked if they agreed to the subtitute officiating over their case. I was dumb enough to agree. The commissioner will be on vacation for the next month. Am I allowed to go to the hallway infront of the court room every Monday & Tuesday at 10:30am and 1:30pm and hold up a sign that reads, "If your officer is present then why would you agree to let a non-commissioner hear your case. The officer may not show up at your next hearing." It would make me feel better to make this incompetent non-commissioner to have an empty month long docket. Further, it would make me feel better to cost the city even more money in officer overtime charges. I want to do my best to discourage the police department from turning a profit on traffic citations. Can I protest outside a court room or is this providing unliscenced legal advice? Or should I hold the sign on the public sidewalk off of the court property? Can I be held for contempt if I never step foot in the court room?

My question involves civil rights in the State of: California

I was convicted of a traffic violation.

The regular commissioner was on vacation on the day I was convicted and will be on vacation for the next month. They had a local lawyer substitute. I forget the title he was given. Prior to the swearing in, all of the defendants were individually asked if they agreed to the subtitute officiating over their case. I was dumb enough to agree.

Am I allowed to go to the hallway infront of the court room every Monday & Tuesday at 10:30am and 1:30pm and hold up a sign that reads, "If your officer is present then why would you agree to let a non-commissioner hear your case. The officer may not show up at your next hearing."

It would make me feel better to make this incompetent non-commissioner to have an empty month long docket. Further, it would make me feel better to cost the city even more money in officer overtime charges. I want to do my best to discourage the police department from turning a profit on traffic citations. Can I protest outside a court room or is this providing unliscenced legal advice? Or should I hold the sign on the public sidewalk off of the court property? Can I be held for contempt if I never step foot in the court room?

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

1) Regarding the appeal...Is it enough to quote the definition of the R41 "Right Turn Only" from the 1996 traffic manual. "The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory."

---

So you testified that the sign does not exist, is not listed... etc, and now you want to appeal, submit a record of what was stated during the trial (primarily the part where the sign does not exist and is not listed) but that the traffic manual has the criteria for whee the sign should be placed... Does that honestly make sense to you?

Even if it does, an appeal is "a review of the record and the evidence presented in the case" meaning you cannot introduce new evidence and you won't get thr opportunity to make new arguments!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

How can I be convicted of disobeying a traffic sign that has been improperly placed?

---

The sign was not improperly placed. As I stated above, you did not even take the time to establish WHICH authority placed the sign, and without knowing that, you have no idea under what criteria or conditions it was placed there. So how can you say that it was improperly placed?

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

How can I be convicted of turning left at an intersection when I was not even IN an intersection?

---

That has been answered in a number of different ways above...

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

2) Also, the regular commissioner was on vacation on the day I was convicted. They had a local lawyer substitute. I forget the title he was given.

---

"Pro-tem"...

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Prior to the swearing in, all of the defendants were individually asked if they agreed to the subtitute officiating over their case. I was dumb enough to agree.

---

If it makes you feel any better, or any less dumb, the arguments you made would not have worked in front of a judge either.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Am I allowed to go to the hallway infront of the court room every Monday & Tuesday at 10:30am and 1:30pm and hold up a sign that reads, "If your officer is present then why would you agree to let a non-commissioner hear your case. The officer may not show up at your next hearing."

---

You can try...

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

It would make me feel better to make this incompetent non-commissioner to have an empty month long docket.

---

And I am sure that will break his heart... Even though he still gets paid the same amount at the end.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Further, it would make me feel better to cost the city even more money in officer overtime charges.

---

I'm sure the officers would appreciate your efforts, but you can bet that neither you nor your sign will last longer than a few minutes outside that courtroom... Or anywhere near that court for that matter!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

I want to do my best to discourage the police department from turning a profit on traffic citations.

---

So you want to limit how much "profit" the police departments are making off of citations, but at the same time you want the officers to get paid overtime... How much money do you think the PD makes off of your citation?

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Can I be held for contempt if I never step foot in the court room?

---

If the courtroom is open to the public, they can't stop you from watching. But it is safe to assume that you are not going there to watch.... And "contempt" (either jail time or a monetary fine) may possibly be in your future... And regardless of how this may turn out, my money is on you being on the losing end!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

My question involves civil rights in the State of: California

I was convicted of a traffic violation.

The regular commissioner was on vacation on the day I was convicted and will be on vacation for the next month. They had a local lawyer substitute. I forget the title he was given. Prior to the swearing in, all of the defendants were individually asked if they agreed to the subtitute officiating over their case. I was dumb enough to agree.

Am I allowed to go to the hallway infront of the court room every Monday & Tuesday at 10:30am and 1:30pm and hold up a sign that reads, "If your officer is present then why would you agree to let a non-commissioner hear your case. The officer may not show up at your next hearing."

It would make me feel better to make this incompetent non-commissioner to have an empty month long docket. Further, it would make me feel better to cost the city even more money in officer overtime charges. I want to do my best to discourage the police department from turning a profit on traffic citations. Can I protest outside a court room or is this providing unliscenced legal advice? Or should I hold the sign on the public sidewalk off of the court property? Can I be held for contempt if I never step foot in the court room?

---

Asking the same questions a second time does not change the answers no will it change the fact that you need to get over it. Acting like an immature child, disrupting the court's normal operation because you lost your trial when in reality, it all started with this:

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

I claimed at the time that I didn’t see/notice the sign.

---

That, to me, says you took a bet and lost, you got caught.

Deal with it!!!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

1) Regarding the appeal...Is it enough to quote the definition of the R41 "Right Turn Only" from the 1996 traffic manual. "The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory." The officer has stated under oath that the parking lot is NOT an intersection. How can I be convicted of disobeying a traffic sign that has been improperly placed? How can I be convicted of turning left at an intersection when I was not even IN an intersection?

---

To expand on one of TGs points: Unless you made the very fine distinction at trial that the sign was not in the MUTCD or a supplement as required by 21461 AND, as part of the separate intersection argument, that it was in the 1996 Traffic Manual which required it to be installed at an intersection, you can't bring up R41 in the appeal.

The officer may have said "it's not an intersection", but, atleast in the context of our argument, that is a question of LAW wHich will be reviewed "de novo" on appeal (ie the justices will decide for themselves if it is or isn't an intersection.) In general, officers cannot give their opinion on interpreting laws and ideally the judge should have cautioned him.

Moral of the story (I speak from experience :)) : DO NOT stipulate to a pro-tem ever. Also, pro-gems rarely serve for more than a day or two or three a month (they don't get paid and still have their full-time attorney jobs to do). So I doubt your protest would do much.