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

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

Shortly after I dropped off my kids at their elementary school, I turned left onto a typical 2 lane residential road from the school’s parking lot. To my surprise, I get pulled over by Officer Friendly. He claims that I violated the “Right Turn Only” sign. I claimed at the time that I didn’t see/notice the sign. Unfortunately, I drove off with a 21461(a) citation.
I wanted to bounce off a few ideas.
1) I should not have received a 21461(a) violation. This carries a big fine plus one point on my record. I figure that since the public school is public property then I believe I should have received a citation for 38300.
a. Can the judge just say, okay you’re guilty of 38300 right away or does the prosecution need to reissue the citation and reschedule the trial?
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.
38300. It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to disobey any sign, signal, or traffic control device placed or maintained pursuant to Section 38280.
38280. Federal, state, or local authorities having jurisdiction over public lands may place or cause to be placed and maintained, such appropriate signs, signals and other traffic control devices as may be necessary to properly indicate and carry out any provision of law or any duly adopted regulation of such governmental authority or to warn or guide traffic.
2) It annoys me that the traffic officer is considered the “prosecution” and not just a “witness” in California. I was planning on attempting to set up a meeting with my “prosecutor” at the local police department to negotiate a plea deal. I’m assuming that I’ll get laughed out of the police station. I’ll document this attempt. When the trial starts, I’ll ask that the judge drop the case since there is no “prosecutor” and whine about the disparity I heard a few days earlier.
3) I noticed that the sign is written in words, “Right Turn Only.” This sign does not appear to exist in the latest MUTCD. On table 1-102(CA), it does reference a R41(CA) “Right Turn Only” as being obsolete with no target compliance date. This sign has been replaced with a R3-5R, arrow pointing right with an “ONLY” underneath. Naturally, I feel that I have the right to determine if the sign is legitimate. Are the words the correct size & position according to the state of California? I was unable to find a descriptive drawing of the sign. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm
So…am I not-guilty or should I just take traffic school?

VC 38300 only applies to offroad vehicles. If you lose the TBD and see the officer show up for TDN, you could try and ask the officer if he would agree to back you up when you ask the judge to amend the ticket to a nonmover. What's the worst that can happen? He can only say no.

# 2), the officer is just a witness, not the prosecutor. With the exception of a few backwater Podunk courts in CA, you won't see anyone from DA's office present unless the charge is a misdemeanor (e.g. DUI, Vehicular MS, Driving while Suspended) rather than an infraction. You'd do well NOT to try to contact the officer unless things get to trian de novo and you see him show up.

# 3), If you're ok with it, post a googlemaps link to the insersection where the alleged violation took place so a couple of people more familiar with MUTCD technicalities can take a look at it and see if you can raise something up.

1) Thank you, that saved me some embarrassment.

2) The officer that pulled me over works the first shift and there is no way he will miss a the court date. I figure I have nothing to lose by calling. Also, this PD has an excellent court attendance record (not in my favor, sigh).

3) VC section 21465 - Unauthorized Traffic Devices. This suggests that I have the right to determine if the sign I'm accused of disobeying is legal. I downloaded the 600+ page pdf that details every legal sign in the state of California. I'll ask the officer to point out the sign that I violated. Btw, it isn't there because R41(CA) is obsolete. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm Do I need to print out the whole pdf or can I just submit a memory stick as evidence?

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

2) The officer that pulled me over works the first shift and there is no way he will miss a the court date. I figure I have nothing to lose by calling. Also, this PD has an excellent court attendance record (not in my favor, sigh).

---

Calling to negotiate a plea deal? Hahahaha <---- is what the police will say when you ask them!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

3) VC section 21465 - Unauthorized Traffic Devices. This suggests that I have the right to determine if the sign I'm accused of disobeying is legal. I downloaded the 600+ page pdf that details every legal sign in the state of California. I'll ask the officer to point out the sign that I violated. Btw, it isn't there because R41(CA) is obsolete. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/si...ndel/specs.htm

---

21465 is irrelevant here unless you can show the sign was somehow defective. Old signs with no target compliance dates can remain "until the end of their useful life." By trying to "trick" the police and the court into showing that your sign isn't there in the most recent list, you could be committing legally punishable misconduct.

Why not do what HA recommended, and post the intersection/direction so that those of us who are more familiar with the MUTCD can see if there are any technicalities you may be able to exploit?

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=hollis...ornia&t=k&z=19Quirkyquark,


I figure that one of five options will occur. a) "I'm not a prosecutor", b) Okay, a plea would be fine. You seem to be a pillar of the community, c) Haaaahaaahaaha, d) crickets, e) Autoreply, "I will be out of the office until...." Since I have no pride, no sweat here.



I figure, if the sign doesn't exist in the California database then there is reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the sign. How do you see misconduct? I can state beforehand that I couldn't find the sign in the database if that helps keep me out of jail. Just because I couldn't find it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

Here is the image. The region of interest is the second school parking lot intersection on the vertical road (reference main intersection at top left of image).

http://g.co/maps/paqet

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Here is the image. The region of interest is the second school parking lot intersection on the vertical road (reference main intersection at top left of image).

---

Thanks. You can certainly try contacting the cop, it's just that it will probably amount to nothing.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4500/bcondie.jpg

I presume this is the location we're talking about. The sign is under the red dot; it's inside the school driveway, so no head-on view. You can certainly try your argument, but here's how I would go about fighting this (which refines your argument, in part :))

---

VC 22101 would have been the better section to cite you with, but it's VC 21461 so let's start with that. Breaking it up into easily digestible chunks:

Quote:

---

Quoting V C Section 21461 Obedience by Driver to Official Traffic Control Devices

---

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle

1. 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,
2. or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

---

Your first argument is: Show me where in the federal MUTCD or the DOT supplement (i.e., CA MUTCD) is this "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign?

Now, you and I may know that it was last defined as regulatory in the 1996 Traffic Manual (see PDF page 72), but that's irrelevant since 21461(a) clearly states Federal MUTCD OR Caltrans supplement to Federal MUTCD. Since California first adopted the Federal MUTCD on May 20, 2004, the 1996 Traffic Manual cannot be a "supplement" to that. The actual supplement to that first 2003 MUTCD does NOT contain the R41 sign.

---

Your second argument is OK, not in the MUTCD. What's the proof that it was erected by "lawful authority of a public body or official"?

To win, odd as it seems, YOU better show there's no proof (if you ask the officer, he'll just say something like "oh, it's been here for 20 years and I've been giving tickets for 10 years" and the judge will accept it). To do this, you send a public records request to the city hall clerk, asking for all documents related to installation of the "right turn only" sign on the parking lot exit of XYZ Elementary School; if you get proof, it doesn't matter (see argument 3) -- if you get a letter saying NO DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE, you can use that as proof that the sign was not properly erected.

---

Your third argument is (this is a common legal tactic to drive the last nail in the coffin when you are in a very strong position): OK, let's assume that the sign is somehow justified. Even so, it is placed illegally; it is unauthorized (VC 21465) and I have no obligation to obey it.

Here's the reasoning. The 1996 Traffic Manual, where this sign last existed as a regulatory sign, says:

Quote:

---

Quoting 1996 Traffic Manual

---

RIGHT TURN ONLY SIGN
The Right Turn Only sign (R41) shall be used where a right turn at an intersection is mandatory.

---

The, umm, "junction" where the sign is installed is NOT an intersection.

The Vehicle Code defines intersection as:

Quote:

---

Quoting V C Section 365 Intersection

---

365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.

---

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.

---

The sign is not applicable and cannot be legally enforced.

---

You may come across MUTCD-deniers (who believe the MUTCD does not have the effect of law), or some may say "well, the above may be true after 2006, but this sign was installed way before then." In that case, we use the following to show that that location has never been an intersection depending solely on the definitions in the Vehicle Code:

Quote:

---

Quoting V C Definitions

---

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.

530. A "roadway" is that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.

---

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).

---

Needless to say, these arguments are best made in a TBD. And oh, the other red dot in the picture shows broken yellow lines, which you can cross. The solid white line is not regulatory. These are the only two other "signs and signals" that the 21461a could refer to, if not the sign (or in addition to it).

Edit:I said 21461 was easier to defend ('beat') than the narrower 22101 because 22101 just says "official traffic control device" without referring to MUTCD, etc.; so, if it was 22101, you would be left with only the third argument which is harder to argue on its own.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

I figure, if the sign doesn't exist in the California database then there is reasonable doubt regarding the legality of the sign.

---

The sign DOES exist in the California data base.

A list of the "current" collection of signs that are "currently" approved and used for "new" installation is NOT representative of ALL the signs that are still in use that may have been approved for use in previous versions of the CA supplement to the MUTCD.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

How do you see misconduct?

---

To stand in court and declare that a sign does not exist when in fact it clearly does, or that is has been deleted and is "obsolete" when it clearly isn't, is most certainly NOT the position you want to find yourself in at a time when the court's "sympathy" is, or should be the ultimate goal here!

So while you might not see it as misconduct, you have to at least have a clue that it might be construed as an attempt to mislead the judge into a misunderstanding that will benefit you. Your intent is obvious, and the results might vary from court to court. But is it worth the risk?

Well, you've already stated that you "have no pride" so maybe to you, it is worth it!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

I can state beforehand that I couldn't find the sign in the database if that helps keep me out of jail.

---

And just like you can state that you didn't see the sign when you made that left turn, does not mean it is not there. As a result, you are put in a position where you have to defend your actions on that date.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

Just because I couldn't find it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there.

---

Ignorance is bliss... Sometimes! But understand that it not likely to get you out of your citation. Anyone with extremely limited knowlege of the MUTCD would know that your mere reference to that sign by R41(CA) (its MUTCD reference number) might conclude some sort of connection. And a review of the current version would result in finding that an R41(CA) sign is on Table I-102(CA) Deleted California Signs - No Target Compliance Dates. The rest including the following short and brief yet clear and easy to understand statement from the CA MUTCD are self explanatory:

Quote:

---

Quoting 2010 CA-MUTCD (Page I-9)

---

The signs listed in Table I-102(CA) are old California signs that have been deleted for application in the past. These signs are non-compliant per this California MUTCD but do not have any specific target compliance dates. Hence, any such signs on existing highways and bikeways can remain in service through the end of their useful service life.

---

What you're proclaiming here is merely a "guilty with explanation" plea, which, if you choose to make it at the arraignment, it might earn you a fine reduction (the amount, if any, will depend on the judge) and the opportunity to take traffic school to avoid the violation point. Alternatively, you can try your luck at a TBD and/or a TBD & TDN in case the office will not appear or submit a declaration, but understand that the fine reduction and eligibility for traffic school may be diminished accordingly once those choices are made.

The choice is yours.

I bet seldom to people respond on the results after the court date.

I spoke with the officer before the trial.
a) He stated that he is a witness and does not have authority to do plea deals.
b) I requested that the case be dismissed due to lack of prosecution. (Unfortunately, the judge required that I make a not guilty plea before I could make the motion...there goes traffic school option.) The officer admitted that he is a witness and not a prosecutor.

I tried these two arguments.
1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.
2) "Right Turn Only" sign is not listed in MUTCD. Nor is it listed in the california sign list.

I was convicted. Is it worth it to appeal or let it go knowing that the City and County lost money on my citation...the trial was one hour long. 1 judge, 1 officer on OT (4 hour OT min), 2 deputies, 1 court interpreter (not used but she had to stay) and 1 clerk.

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

I bet seldom to people respond on the results after the court date.

---

Most don't, thanks for coming back!

Quote:

---

Quoting bwcondie

---

1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.

I was convicted. Is it worth it to appeal or let it go knowing that the City and County lost money on my citation...the trial was one hour long. 1 judge, 1 officer on OT (4 hour OT min), 2 deputies, 1 court interpreter (not used but she had to stay) and 1 clerk.

---

I would appeal, but that's me. It's mostly mail/paperwork, and all it takes is time. Was the trial electronically recorded? Ask the clerk asap. If not, make detailed notes while your memory is still fresh about what went on at trial-- you'll need it for the appeal.

Quote:

---

1) "Right Turn Only" signs applies only to intersections. I got the officer to admit that the parking lot exit is not an intersection, highway or roadway.

---

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

What grounds do you have for appeal? This isn't a de novo at this point. You'll have to make a point of law which you haven't expressed here and I fail to notice.

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.