Speeding Ticket and Failure to Yield to an Emergency Vehicle - is This Fair

My question involves traffic court in the State of: California (Orange County)

Here's the backstory. I was driving down the 405 freeway and the flow of traffic would be considered medium. I was driving two other friends and decided to take the carpool lane since it would be faster. I consider myself a safe driver who doesn't drive faster than 85mph ever and I typically drive around 70 ~ 75 mph on good traffic on the freeway (the speed limit is 65mph for CA freeways). I barely crossed over to the carpool lane for maybe 5 minutes before noticing the police car behind me turned on his flashing lights. At first I thought maybe he needs to pass me since I was skeptical to think I was speeding. I looked at my speedometer at that point and saw I was driving 56mph but I slowed down as soon as I saw the police so I'm not sure exactly how fast I was driving, but I'm pretty sure NOT 86mph. Another thought I had was maybe I cut him off so I must've pissed him off or something.

Anyways, as soon as I realized that I was getting pulled over, I was undecided whether I was supposed to wait for the double yellow line to end before crossing or cross anyways. My friend in my car advised me that someone he knew suffered a similar incident where he was also getting pulled over for speeding in a carpool lane and crossed the double solid lines to pull over and received two citations. Afraid that this was one of those trick situations, I waited for the solid lines to become broken before pulling over. In the meantime, the officer had his lights on and even drove to the next lane to "encourage" me to cross but I wasn't sure of his intentions at the time.

Once pulled over, officer treated me unkindly. He was quick and harsh with his words, saying that I "led him on a mile long chase." He didn't allow me to express that I was unsure of what to do. I have spoken to many friends and colleagues about this situation and they said they would've acted the same as me.

Fast forward, I went to trial hoping that I could waive my "failure to yield" ticket and maybe get a reduction to my speeding ticket. This was my first trial so I didn't know what the repercussions would be if I lost. Officer showed up (to my dismay)! and the Judge (was also a jerk) ruled me guilty. He laughed at me when I asked if I could still take traffic school. Instead he suspended my driver's license for 30-days on top of additional fees. What the hell! I was polite, in fact, I was scared when I presented. I was not rude and didn't say bad things about the officer. Is that fair that I got my license suspended for 30 days AND had to pay the full bail with additional fees ($900+)? I didn't stick around to see if others were treated unfairly as my trial was first in line. Thank you for your comments and help!

What code sections have you been cited for violating?

i was cited for 22349(a) VC and 21806(a)(1) VC. my bail was $839.00 plus my additional court fees was $120.00. lost my chance to do traffic school when i went to court.

Well, whether you think it was "fair" or not is beside the point - it appears to be perfectly lawful. You don't have to like it, but the court was within its rights to deny you traffic school and suspend your license for 30 days when you were found guilty.

You can always look into an appeal, but I doubt that anything new will result from it unless you have something new and compelling to add, or you could identify some wrongful act by the trial court.

You should have prepared a defense ,, one other than just hope. But you may be ready next time.

[redacted]

Needed to read the last paragraph as it was only useful pretrial.

When the OP received the courtesy notice from the court, was traffic school listed as an option? IIUC, it's possible to appeal the denial of traffic school, provided that the court offered you traffic school before your trial. California Rules of court say:

Quote:

---

Quoting Rule of Court 4.104(c)(3)

---

A defendant who is otherwise eligible for traffic violator school is not made ineligible by entering a plea other than guilty or by exercising his or her right to trial. A traffic violator school request must be considered based on the individual circumstances of the specific case. The court is not required to state on the record a reason for granting or denying a traffic violator school request.

---

There's also case law in People v. Enochs and People v. Wozniak that suggest that the court cannot adopt a blanket policy of refusing traffic school for people who choose to go to trial.

Note, however, that the court need not explain itself. Case law merely states that the court must not adopt a blanket refusal. Nothing here indicates that this occurred at all. It is not a surprise to find that a court might decide that a person who speeds and then refuses to yield to the police should suffer a hefty fine and lose their license for a month AND not be allowed the privilege of traffic school. Unless the court was stupid enough to admit that the only reason for not permitting traffic school was because the OP dared to contest the violation, I doubt any appeal will stand a chance in Hades of success.

Just curious. What should the OP have done - crossed or not crossed the solid yellow lines?

Quote:

---

Quoting Feng

---

Just curious. What should the OP have done - crossed or not crossed the solid yellow lines?

---

If there was no left shoulder, then he should have crossed the double lines if it was able to be done in relative safety.

is it possible to receive a ticket for crossing the yellow solid lines when getting pulled over for a different violation? if so, does that mean receiving a second fine is unavoidable?

Quote:

---

Quoting mylucksucks

---

is it possible to receive a ticket for crossing the yellow solid lines when getting pulled over for a different violation? if so, does that mean receiving a second fine is unavoidable?

---

I suppose anything is possible, but it would seem to me to be a real good argument that you saw the lights behind you and pursuant to the CVC you yielded to the right as there was no left shoulder (assuming that was the case).

I am just interested in which section of the CVC.
Let's say I am on the slow lane and see the flash. Instead of immediately pulling over to the right shoulder, I drive a bit more and exit the next fwy exit. Is it okay? I guess most people feel safer stopping on a city street than on a fwy shoulder.

Quote:

---

Quoting mylucksucks

---

is it possible to receive a ticket for crossing the yellow solid lines when getting pulled over for a different violation? if so, does that mean receiving a second fine is unavoidable?

---

"21806(a)(2) A person driving a vehicle in an exclusive or preferential use lane shall exit that lane immediately upon determining that the exit can be accomplished with reasonable safety."

Your commanded to do so.

What the OP should have done (besides, you know, yielding immediately) was harp on the status of the siren. If he can testify that he never heard the siren (sirens being ineffective at freeway speeds is fairly well covered in the exam for the CA ambulance driver certificate, and the handbook available at the DMV. IIRC, that section was written by the CHP), or better yet get the officer to admit that he never sounded his siren, then the elements of 21806 haven't been met.

Granted, at this point you've failed the attitude test anyways and a license can be suspended just on the speeding ticket, but it might have saved some money.

^^^^

There is also 21655.8(b):

21655.8.

(a) Except as required under subdivision (b), when exclusive or preferential use lanes for high-occupancy vehicles are established pursuant to Section 21655.5 and double parallel solid lines are in place to the right thereof, no person driving a vehicle may cross over these double lines to enter into or exit from the exclusive or preferential use lanes, and entrance or exit may be made only in areas designated for these purposes or where a single broken line is in place to the right of the exclusive or preferential use lanes.

(b) Upon the approach of an authorized emergency vehicle displaying a red light or siren, as specified in Section 21806, a person driving a vehicle in an exclusive or preferential use lane shall exit that lane immediately upon determining that the exit can be accomplished with reasonable safety.

(c) Raised pavement markers may be used to simulate painted lines described in this section.

It's interesting that 21655.8 uses "or" and 21806 uses "and".

However, the OP wasn't charged with violating 21655.8(B).

Also a quick disclaimer. People get charged with violating the law, not being an a-hole. Not yielding when safe to do so to emergency vehicles with red lights on but no siren is an a-hole move regardless of legal status. In general, laws enshrine the right action, and if yielding across double yellow lines feels right, then do that. Chances are, it is the right move. Additionally, even if it was technically wrong, the chances of being charged with crossing double yellow lines to yield are much less than being charged with failure to yield.

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

However, the OP wasn't charged with violating 21655.8(B).

---

He wasn't cited for 21806(a)(2) either... He was cited with 21806(a)(1)...

And if you'd read both sub-paragraphs you would see how the OP's citation wasn't related to carpool lanes at all. The citation was issued for “failure to yield to the right -and stop if necessary- to an emergency vehicle”...

But that wasn't my point. My post was not an attempt to relate to what the OP was charged for, but only to answer two questions:

is it possible to receive a ticket for crossing the yellow solid lines when getting pulled over for a different violation?

And What should the OP have done - crossed or not crossed the solid yellow lines?

So the requirement is you must clear out of the carpool lane in cases where you see emergency lights behind you, REGARDLESS of whether it be a part of the officer trying to pull you over (and typically he will guide you/lead you across the lanes and to the right just like he did for the OP here (from first post: “the officer had his lights on and even drove to the next lane to "encourage" me to cross ...”)....
OR whether it be part of the officer (or any other authorized person in an authorized vehicle) simply trying to get past you on his way to an emergency!

Quote:

---

Quoting Feng

---

Let's say I am on the slow lane and see the flash. Instead of immediately pulling over to the right shoulder, I drive a bit more and exit the next fwy exit. Is it okay? I guess most people feel safer stopping on a city street than on a fwy shoulder.

---

You'll note that in both code section that were cited , the word “immediately” is used. Stopping on the freeway shoulder or not (and with the officer parked behind you) is more often more of a safety issue (or lack thereof) for the officer than it is for you... Let him make that decision. Immediately pull over, and if he wants you to do otherwise, he will let you know!

So if there is a shoulder, you merge out of the slow lane and onto the shoulder, if the officer wants you to drive up and off at the next exit, he'll get on the loud speaker and tell you to do so. Better yet, if you're ways from the exit and he wants you off the freeway, chances are he might not light you up until you get close to the exit! Also, more often than not, he'll want you off the off ramp as well, meaning drive through the off ramp, make a right/left and stop immediately. For this last one, wait until he instructs you to do so...

Quote:

---

Quoting California student

---

People get charged with violating the law, not being an a-hole. Not yielding when safe to do so to emergency vehicles with red lights on but no siren is an a-hole move regardless of legal status.

---

Word! :D

I'll even bet that the cop chirped his siren a couple of times here... May be even ran lights AND siren!

I disagree with your first sentence though, Stu...
There are times when people DO get cited for being a-holes (I know I have in the past)...
The'll get convicted for being a-holes, the'll get charged extra fine for being a-holes and they may even get suspended for being a-holes...
My disclaimer comes in here where I say: None of this is in any way related to what happened to the OP here simply because I wasn't there to know what happened!