Courtesy Notice Cites Different Statute Subsection Than Traffic Ticket
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
Hello and thanks for any and all help. I got pulled over a few months ago for running a red left arrow. I was over 50% through the intersection when the arrow turned red but the cop says I was about 20 feet behind the limit line when it turned red. So there's a discrepancy of approximately 100 feet! I was baffled why he pulled me over and I thought a new law went into effect saying it was illegal to be "in an intersection when it turned red" but of course there is no such law.
So I got the courtesy notice in the mail and it listed the infraction as VC 21453(C) but on my copy of the ticket it looks like he wrote me up for VC 21453(A). So I start doing some research and decide to do a TBD addressing the fact that the prosecution must prove that I was facing a circular red light as I was still going by the ticket (VC 21453 A) and not by the courtesy notice (VC 21453 C). I turned in multiple photos showing the left turn red arrows instead of a red circular light.
Here's a photo of the ticket with almost everything erased except for the A's (red dots) and the C's (green dots). I also left his description of the infraction which if it was a "C" infraction he may have put "fail to stop on red arrow" instead of just "fail to stop on red".
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/...ightticket.jpg
Unfortunately I lost the TBD so I did a TDN and just found out my court date is in a little over 3 weeks. In the officer's TBD notes he states that he was on the opposite side of the intersection which is approximately 210 feet away from where he said I was. The limit line is almost completely worn away and he is also the second car back and has to turn his head to see my left turn lane so the car in the other lane (lane #1) affects his vision also.
Here's a photo of the limit line I crossed:
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/.../LimitLine.jpg
Here's the officer's perspective and the white truck is in the left turn lane:
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/...erspective.jpg
Here's the officer's perspective with no vehicles in the left turn lane:
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/...rspective2.jpg
I didn't do the informal discovery request and probably won't because I now know exactly where he was. But what I will do is ask for a copy of the court's ticket. If it shows that he altered the ticket from "A" to "C" then wouldn't VC 40500 come into play? He also said in his TBD notes that he wrote me up for VC 21453 (C). So if he did alter the ticket and didn't submit the proper paperwork it seems that he is guilty of a misdemeanor (VC 40500) and also perjured himself in his TBD statement. Upon filling out the TDN form I just put VC 21453 (C) which may hurt me but I didn't want it to get rejected by the judge. I still think the original ticket (if changed) is reason for dismissal.
I believe I can win just based on his location. I've already got the timing/phasing info from the proper agency. They also said the only remote light indications are in the control box. One of the things I said when he was outside of my car was, "How do you know the lights are synchronized?" and he said, "Because they have to be." So how can I refute his statement?
The other interesting thing I noticed which may help me is that VC 21453 (A) states "marked limit line" but VC 21453 (C) states "clearly marked limit line". Also, as you can seen from the photos of the limit line it's really not a "line" any more, it's more a collection of line segments, dots, or multiple lines but definitely not a single line.
It's been 27 years since my last citation and I paid that with no questions asked because I was guilty of speeding. I'm totally innocent on this one and that's why I'm fighting it but I know it's my word against his. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Re: 21453 (A) or 21453 (C) You Make the Call
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
I got pulled over a few months ago for running a red left arrow. I was over 50% through the intersection when the arrow turned red but the cop says I was about 20 feet behind the limit line when it turned red. So there's a discrepancy of approximately 100 feet!
I'll leave that up there as a reminder of the one fact that this case will depend on... No, not your claim but the officer's! Sorry.
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
So I got the courtesy notice in the mail and it listed the infraction as VC 21453(C)
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
He also said in his TBD notes that he wrote me up for VC 21453 (C).
So you know full well that you were turning on a dedicated left turn arrow (regardless of color) which is cited under (c);
The courtesy notice comes in showing a (c);
In his declaration, he submits a case that is based on (c)...
And yet you would like for it to be an (a) simply because that makes for an easy dismissal?
Whil I do know of a few cases which were dismissed because of that one error, I will say that there is no guarantee it will work every time
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
So I start doing some research and decide to do a TBD addressing the fact that the prosecution must prove that I was facing a circular red light as I was still going by the ticket (VC 21453 A) and not by the courtesy notice (VC 21453 C). I turned in multiple photos showing the left turn red arrows instead of a red circular light.
What kind of research could you have done that would have indicated to you that you can pick and choose which violation you will contest?
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
Here's a photo of the ticket with almost everything erased except for the A's (red dots) and the C's (green dots). I also left his description of the infraction which if it was a "C" infraction he may have put "fail to stop on red arrow" instead of just "fail to stop on red".
OK, so I do see a possible (A) in there but you're assuming it is a "CAPITAL A"; How do you know he would have written it with an (a)... But I also see a couple of (c) look-a-likes... Not just one!
What color is that citation? And if you were to look at the last possible line that could be printed on it, towards the center, what does it say? "Defendant's Copy", "Court Copy" or something else?
Also, keep in mind that the carbon-less copy feature of the paper citations issued in this state would allow a dry-ing pen, for example, to leave a mark on the second and third copy, whereas if the pen is dry, the top copy shoes nothing!
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
Unfortunately I lost the TBD so I did a TDN and just found out my court date is in a little over 3 weeks. In the officer's TBD notes he states that he was on the opposite side of the intersection which is approximately 210 feet away from where he said I was. The limit line is almost completely worn away and he is also the second car back and has to turn his head to see my left turn lane so the car in the other lane (lane #1) affects his vision also.
Here's a photo of the limit line I crossed:
The limit line has ZERO relevance here simply because the officer's claim is that the light had turned red at the time that you were 20 before the intersection. And clearly, it would be still red when you are 10 feet away, same as 5 feet away, same as an inch an a half away.
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
Here's the officer's perspective and the white truck is in the left turn lane:
Here's the officer's perspective with no vehicles in the left turn lane:
Arguably, assuming those pics show the location from 210 feet away from the limit line, it is possible that he was the first vehicle in line, if his reference of 210 feet was describing the distance from your location 20 feet past before the limit line...
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
I didn't do the informal discovery request and probably won't because I now know exactly where he was.
A copy of his citation would also reveal whatever notes he made on the case!
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
If it shows that he altered the ticket from "A" to "C" then wouldn't VC 40500 come into play?
Not sure which part of 40500 would offer you any relief! In reality, section 40505 is the direct section that is relevant.
40505.
Whenever any traffic or police officer delivers a notice to appear or notice of violation charging an offense under this code to any person, it shall include all information set forth upon the copy of the notice filed with a magistrate and no traffic or police officer shall set forth on any notice filed with a magistrate or attach thereto or accompany the notice with any written statement giving information or containing allegations which have not been delivered to the person receiving the notice to appear or notice of violation.
... it offers you no relieve whatsoever, and if anything it may result in disciplinary action against the officer. But even then, how would that benefit you in any way? before it gets to that point though, the question that needs to be ask is: Did the office try to hide a perceived error that he wrote the citation for the wrong subsection, and he was underhanded in doing so, or was he asked by the clerk, for example "hey Mr. officer, we cant read which subsection this particular citation is listing, so... Which is it 'a' or 'c'", He answers "oh, sorry, its a 'c'"...
I would guess that the firstr paragraph of section 40513 would have some relevancy if any changes were mad by the officer on the citation AFTER it is delivered to the defendant...
40513.
(a) Whenever written notice to appear has been prepared, delivered, and filed with the court, an exact and legible duplicate copy of the notice when filed with the magistrate, in lieu of a verified complaint, shall constitute a complaint to which the defendant may plead "guilty" or "nolo contendere."
But too late for that simply because you've already (presumably) posted bail, requested a TBD, submitted it it and lost. So too late to claim a defective notice to appear.
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
He also said in his TBD notes that he wrote me up for VC 21453 (C). So if he did alter the ticket and didn't submit the proper paperwork it seems that he is guilty of a misdemeanor (VC 40500) and also perjured himself in his TBD statement. Upon filling out the TDN form I just put VC 21453 (C) which may hurt me but I didn't want it to get rejected by the judge. I still think the original ticket (if changed) is reason for dismissal.
You won't get a dismissal. And the officer is not going to get charged with a misdemeanor... That wouldn't be up to you anyways, it is up to the D.A. You already have him at guilty and yet all you have is your suspicion that "he" might have changed it. All while it would be clear that since he handed you your copy, the citation exchanged a number of hands all of which were likely handling a pen while handling the citation. The time to discuss all this would have been as soon as you received your courtesy notice. You should have contacted the court, and scheduled an appearance and discuss it with the judge... Instead, and not only did you ignore the possibility of a discrepancy, you denied its existence by not bringing it up through several contacts with the court. And then argued that case as if the officer was wrong and you were right, while really, isn't likely to fly in court.
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
I believe I can win just based on his location. I've already got the timing/phasing info from the proper agency. They also said the only remote light indications are in the control box. One of the things I said when he was outside of my car was, "How do you know the lights are synchronized?" and he said, "Because they have to be." So how can I refute his statement?
How can you refute facts that he knows? You get a report from Dept of Public Works, or Traffic and Engineering or whatever they call that department in your city, showing that the lights aren't synchronized... But really, if you have any expectations of that being possible, then I am not sure we have much to discuss!
Good luck!
Re: Courtesy Notice Cites Different Statute Subsection Than Traffic Ticket
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
I was over 50% through the intersection when the arrow turned red but the cop says I was about 20 feet behind the limit line when it turned red. So there's a discrepancy of approximately 100 feet! I was baffled why he pulled me over and I thought a new law went into effect saying it was illegal to be "in an intersection when it turned red" but of course there is no such law.
I have a lot of respect for TG, and I agree with most of what he has told you. I'd like to take a slightly different tack, though. (No offense intended, TG). There's a lot of misinformation about the laws at intersections. I got a 21453(C) in 2003 and took traffic school for it. The traffic school instructor told me that if the light turned red while you were in the intersection, then you were guilty. I'm not making that up -- that's somebody in charge of providing remedial driving instruction getting the law wrong.
It sounds like you've already read 21453(c), but I'm going to re-post it here for posterity.
21453 (c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
The problem with your limit line defense is that even if the limit line wasn't there, you're still supposed to stop before entering the intersection. That means that if you argue to the judge that the limit line wasn't present, he or she probably won't care as long as the officer testifies that you entered the intersection when the light was red. This means that the only things left for you to challenge here are the officer's perception of where your car was in relation to the intersection, and whether he could tell that the light was red. I agree with TG here: you'll want the engineering reports used to install the traffic lights. This might tell you if they're synchronized, but your goal should be to get the officer to admit that he couldn't see the light turning red. I would also measure 20 feet from the intersection, and see if you can get a picture of an object that's 20 feet away, and then at the crosswalk. The judge has a lot of leeway in accepting photographic evidence, and may ask the officer to give his opinion on your pictures, so make them as accurate as you can. There are no guarantees with this one, but if I were really innocent and the officer misjudged where my car was, that's how I would argue the case.
Re: Courtesy Notice Cites Different Statute Subsection Than Traffic Ticket
.
Isn't it mind blowing how hatred spreads and multiplies? If it was a compliment or a good word that someone said, all of you pathetic spineless cowardly imbeciles would run and hide!
You're too big of a pussy to post this in your own thread, you had to post it elsewhere... So I'll do it for you, from 2 other threads:
Quote:
Quoting
jeep2007
Did anyone lose an asshole? Because I found one:
That Guy (or is it That Dick)
What a sorry ass POS he is. It seems like every law message board has an egotistical gate keeper whose worthless life would be over if the internet ceased to exist. He probably still hasn't come to grips with the fact that Matlock got cancelled. He reminds me of an old SNL character "Nick Burns - The Computer Guy". The only difference is that Nick Burns actually helps people in the end.
I'll probably get banned for this post but who cares. People come on here asking for HELP not to be belittled, berated, or arm-chair quarterbacked. There are some very good volunteers who are helpful but if you have to put up people like That Guy (aka I_Got_Banned at another site) it's not worth the time. My advice is to "PM" the people who you think can help you.
So even though I'll probably get banned it's actually That Guy who should get banned. The one thing That Guy has done perfectly is to lay the foundation for being called a complete IDIOT!
You're a sorry ass scum-bag, who obviously couldn't handle the reality of the answer you were given in your own thread, so you hold it in for 10 or so days, and you come back for redemption. Is that what this is all about? Clearly, you are a mid 40s possibly early 50s moron who lives his life through the fantasy of T.V. characters, you copy ideas for a defense from other threads and even though it is clear that those defenses do not apply to your case, you simply lack the mental capacity to try and justify your position, you could not simply attempt to discuss a legitimate answer you were given, you find it plausible to post your deplorable ramble crap to those who are in a similar situation as you are. Have I got this right so far? If so, rest assured I am not offended by your little trick. I would actually be quite flattered that my post and opinion stirred up a response... But to respond in the creepy manner you did... That's a different story!
What does concern me though is this, not only did you chase me down from another forum, you did so from a forum where, with the exception of one or two posts a few weeks prior to your post, I had not posted there in over a year. (BTW, you're the 2nd person to mention that forum on here (as if I'm hiding out here or something) or maybe you're one and the same). And then you made it a point to search this forum for two threads where other pathetic souls were dissatisfied with my posts (this is one: Re: Oregon: Entering an Intersection to Turn Left on Yellow and here is the other one: Re: Jailed Over an Unpaid Speeding Ticket) . And yet you still posted nothing in this, your own thread as a response. Instead, you simply deleted the useless photos you had previously posted... But wait, you couldn't delete your IP address though, could you? This makes you a stalker... And a creepy one at that! But one who is much bigger of an idiot than I could ever be!
And ban you? From this forum? Why would anyone ban you??? There are only a limited number of people that you must not offend. And you can rest assured I am not one of them. And more importantly, the fact that you're a bigger idiot than I could ever be, the fact that you are mentally and intellectually challenged, makes you a fixture and a distraction that is welcome on this forum. Perfect example of that, look at your buddy the forum joker, A.K.A. losthismind; clearly, there really is no benefit in keeping him around. Not one single post that is useful to anyone, not now, not ever... And he's spewed enough crap about me to equal his weight in cow pies (dry, not wet); yet he's still around, he's still posting crap because that all he knows how to do, and nobody's banned him simply because nobody cares what he does. And nobody's gonna chase him to bum-**** Iowa to file a complaint against him! He'll find his match someday... I have no doubt. With that said, and while he thinks I hate him, I don't? I feel sorry for him but mostly for his family! You would make for a different story though. It'll be much easier to get you for stalking and harassment! So consider this as your warning to stop being an idiot. Every step you take from here will count against you. I'll leave it at that!