Cited for VC 21806 (A)(1) - Failure to Yield to Right for Emergency Vehicle

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

I was driving in the far left lane on the 15N in the Barstow area when a CHP pulled up behind me and flashed his lights. In a panic, I pulled over to the left shoulder (which was a very wide paved shoulder) in an effort to quickly get out of his way. He followed behind me and told me on the speaker to pull over to the right and exit the first offramp, which I did. When the officer approached my window, he stated he was pulling me over because of my broken tail light. I indicated that the car was a rental car and therefore, the light was not my responsibility. He told me that he was then going to cite me for failing to pull over to the right.

The problem I have is that as the code reads, it seems to interpret a violation of not pulling over for an emergency vehicle in pursuit. I did pull over immediately and he was not in pursuit. I don't argue the fact that I pulled over to the left, but that violation seems totally different to the severity of how the code seems to read. Pulling over to the left instead of the right vs. not pulling over for an emergency vehicle in pursuit sound like different violations. My question is, do I have a chance of fighting this in court? Any direction or advise would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks...

VC 21806. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle which is sounding a siren and which has at least one lighted lamp exhibiting red light that is visible, under normal atmospheric conditions, from a distance of 1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle, the surrounding traffic shall, except as otherwise directed by a traffic officer, do the following:

(a) (1) Except as required under paragraph (2), the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

By pulling to the left, you violated this section. You may be right that there is a more specific section to your circumstances (as the officer’s intent was to stop you, not just trying to get by). Nonetheless, this section does apply to your actions.

If he can get the officer to admit to not using his siren, then he isn't in violation of that statute. Good luck with that.

So is it even possible to get an officer to admit his siren wasn't on?

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

If he can get the officer to admit to not using his siren, then he isn't in violation of that statute. Good luck with that.

---

Well you don't have to get him admit this .. if he doesn't testify that he did, that would be enough. And he must testify to the distance. And to the color of his "one red light". All must be testified to.

If he doesn't testify to these facts then no cross is needed; allow the state to rest and motion for acquittal for lack of evidence.

Cali Student makes a good point that I missed. If the officer, in fact, did not activate his siren, you have perfect grounds for dismissal. Contest the citation and question the officer under oath. I seriously doubt that the officer will lie under oath to gain a traffic violation conviction. If the officer replies that he did not activate his siren, or doesn't remember, ask the judge to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the statutory requirements for violation were not met.

BUT, if the officer DID activate his siren, even for just one "whoop," he can truthfully say that the violation requirements were met. If you claim otherwise, and the officer can show evidence that he did (a dashcam recording comes immediately to mind), you will likely lose any compassion from the judge.

And yes, you are responsible for ensuring any vehicle you are operating is within code...even a rental.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

If the officer, in fact, did not activate his siren, you have perfect grounds for dismissal. Contest the citation and question the officer under oath.

---

Technically, the officer should testify to this element in his testimony; if he forgets, and even if the siren was on, you DO NOT bring it out on cross -- you motion for a PC 1118 dismissal.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

BUT, if the officer DID activate his siren, even for just one "whoop," he can truthfully say that the violation requirements were met.

---

As one can imagine, there is a lot of case law for this VC (police/fire/ambulance and private vehicles/people collisions aren't exactly rare). One of them (there should be more) qualifying the "whoop" bit says:

Quote:

---

Quoting Mulligan v. West Coast Fast Freight, Inc. (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 791, 796

---

We conclude that sections 454 and 554, read together, mean that (to enjoy exemption from the speed and traffic law requirements) the driver of an emergency vehicle (in addition to displaying the red light) must give audible signal by siren, as a warning to others using the highway, when under all the circumstances it is reasonably necessary to do so, and in such a case he must sound the siren in such a manner, with such audibility, as will afford the others a reasonable opportunity to yield the right of way. ‘Others,’ of course, means persons of reasonably good hearing who are giving attention to their surroundings in observance of their duties as users of the public highways.

---

That doesn't necessarily mean the siren has to be "full on", but a single, half-cycle "whoop" may not be enough.

The other important requirement of VC 21806 which no one has mentioned so far is that it must be an "authorized emergency vehicle."

VC 165 will give you a very broad (and somewhat vague) definition of authorized emergency vehicle, so we must look to case law for clarification. The general idea seems to be that to ignore the VC (and require folks to yield right-of-way), law enforcement vehicles must either be responding to an emergency call or be enforcing the VC. Discovery should easily reveal what emergency call (if any) the officer was responding to (note that no actual emergency need exist).

On the other hand, if he was enforcing the VC, you were clearly the target. In that case, he couldn't have decided to pull you over for the way you yielded before you did so. If that is the only offense charged, you have a good argument that there was no probable cause to arrest (cite) you, and the case should be dismissed.

All good and valid points. However, I have doubts as to how effective they will be for OP.

The testimony point I do not think will fly in the real world. While you are absolutely correct that this is how it should work, traffic court judges are notoriously...shall we say "informal" with the rules of testimony. I think it likely that the judge would simply turn to the officer and ask, "did you activate your siren?" And, accept the officer's response as testimony. While this would be technically improper and grounds for appeal, most people (including OP, I imagine) will not want to go through the time and expense of appeal over a traffic infraction.

Your point about the "whoop" is also likely to fall on deaf ears. The case you cite says the siren must be of audibility & duration "as will afford the others a reasonable opportunity to yield the right of way." Since OP did, in fact, yield (albeit, improperly), it is unlikely that he could argue that the siren did not afford a reasonable opportunity to do so...again presuming the officer did activate it.

Challenging on the responding to emergency or enforcing the VC is also questionable. It is true that it seems unlikely that the officer was responding to another call and decided to break off to stop OP. However, the officer told OP that he was stopping him for an equipment violation. Whether the officer cited OP for that violation or not is irrelevant. It is still a valid enforcement of the VC. When the officer learned that OP was not the RO of the vehicle, he chose to give only a verbal warning for that violation. However, that does not prevent him from citing for another violation that occurred during the course of the stop.

Quote:

---

Quoting PTPD22

---

Challenging on the responding to emergency or enforcing the VC is also questionable. It is true that it seems unlikely that the officer was responding to another call and decided to break off to stop OP. However, the officer told OP that he was stopping him for an equipment violation. Whether the officer cited OP for that violation or not is irrelevant. It is still a valid enforcement of the VC. When the officer learned that OP was not the RO of the vehicle, he chose to give only a verbal warning for that violation. However, that does not prevent him from citing for another violation that occurred during the course of the stop.

---

Sorry Quirky.. But PTPD22 hit it on the nose... I think you're stretching way too far on this one.

VC 165 in NEITHER broad NOR vague.. It is actually pretty simple and clear.

In this case, the officer was using an "authorized emergency vehicle" fitting the definition under 165(b)(1):

Quote:

---

(b) Any publicly owned vehicle operated by the following persons, agencies, or organizations:

(1) Any federal, state, or local agency, department, or district employing peace officers as that term is defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Part 2 of Title 3 of the Penal Code, for use by those officers in the performance of their duties.

---

Fact is, even if officer (1) happened to get dispatched to a call, someone failed to yield, and another officer (2) who just happened to be cruising by (not on an emergency call) the likelihood of officer (1) deciding to pull someone over to cite him rather than proceed to the call are very slim, but that does not mean that officer (2) could not pull them over and cite them!