Stop Sign Ticket, California VC 22450(A) - Improper Procedure by Officer
My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
A little while ago I received a ticket for failure to stop at a stop sign, (CA VC 22450(a)), while making a left turn in Los Angeles and my courthouse is the Metropolitan one on South Hill Street. This is what happened.
I was about to make a left turn to look for parking, in what I suppose would be considered a residential area, and I stopped at the stop sign. I looked left first then I looked right and saw a police car stopped in the adjacent street about to enter the intersection. It’s just that the police car was not completely stopped and was rolling into the intersection as I was looking at it. So I assumed that it was waiting for me to hurry up and make my left turn because drivers tend to do that, they start slowly veering into the intersection as they wait for you to make your move, it happens all the time. And in hindsight, perhaps this made me stop at the stop sign for an amount of time that was maybe somewhat relatively brief but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t stop. I’m not stupid enough to just run through a stop sign right in front of police.
So anyways, I make my left turn and next thing I know the police car is pulling me over. FYI, I’ve never been pulled over for a traffic violation, (although I did once receive a camera ticket about 2 years ago), I’ve only ever been pulled over for a fix-it ticket and I don’t even remember when that was because it was so long ago, so I wasn’t totally sure about what the procedures were supposed to be. The police officer takes my license and registration and just leaves to run my records. They didn’t bother to tell me why I was pulled over to begin with and I’m just sitting there wondering what I did wrong. Finally 12 to 15 minutes later the officer comes back to me and says “Sorry, I was supposed to tell you why I pulled you over. You blew through that stop sign. Please sign here.” I was caught off-guard. All I said was “Oh. Really?” I assumed that arguing with the officer right then and there wouldn’t do any good and I didn’t really know what to do. So I just signed and assumed that the only way I could possibly fight this is by going through the city’s set procedures.
So do I have a case and what are my chances for winning if I fight this?
I suppose the officer’s defense would be that the police car was slowly veering into the intersection only because they were concerned about my “reckless” driving. But how would I even relay that whole narrative to the judge anyways, to suggest that the police car slowly rolling into the intersection induced me into maybe not stopping for a sufficient amount of time at the stop sign before making my left turn? Would the judge even care?
And what about the officer not telling me why I was pulled over until the very end? Isn’t this a mistake in official procedure? Does this have any bearing on my case? Would the judge care, especially considering that I can’t really prove this because I have no witnesses?
Advice would be appreciated. Thank you.
Re: Stop Sign Ticket, California VC 22450(A) - Improper Procedure by Officer
Based on what you posted and the way you described it, here is what I think:
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
It’s just that the police car was not completely stopped and was rolling into the intersection as I was looking at it.
"rolling into the intersection", to me, means he had already stopped at or before the limit line, checked cross traffic and concluded that he had the right of way, and while you may have been approaching, you weren't at the stop line yet and as such did not qualify as having the right of way over him, so he began "rolling past the line and into the intersection". (Make sense?)
Legally, this is your duty at a stop sign:
1) Stop shortly before or at the line;
2) Check cross traffic and pedestrians in the crosswalks you will be crossing;
3) Once you establish a clear intersection and clear crosswalk, and that it is in fact your right of way against any other traffic that may be there, you may proceed over the line and into the intersection as intended.
Here is what you did (per your description):
a) You stopped (no description where, how far from the line, at the line or possibly over the line) ← this is where the violation occurred!
b) You looked left, started to look right, noticed that the officer's vehicle was rolling into the intersection (you're still supposed to be at a stand still);
c) Assumed the officer, in spite of being into the intersection, whereas you are supposed to remain behind the line until he clears the intersection, to you, he meant that you should go ahead and make your turn!
In the meantime, if we go back to step (a), you had presumably stopped (or maybe it was a short stop -too short to consider legal) or possibly (since you did not disclose where exactly you stopped) maybe you stopped past the line -which means you blew the stop- and would constitute the violation which you were cited for ...
Again, the sentence in italics is a description of the typical stop sign violation based on his description that you "blew the stop sign" and based on the description in the code he cited you for:
22450
(a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection.
If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
It’s just that the police car was not completely stopped and was rolling into the intersection as I was looking at it. So I assumed that it was waiting for me to hurry up and make my left turn because drivers tend to do that, they start slowly veering into the intersection as they wait for you to make your move, it happens all the time.
When they start slowly veering into the intersection that, to me, says they are in a hurry but are hesitant to go because I either never made the stop or made too short of a stop and they're trying to figure out whether I plan on cutting them off or if I'm going to wait. So I let them go!
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
And in hindsight, perhaps this made me stop at the stop sign for an amount of time that was maybe somewhat relatively brief but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t stop. I’m not stupid enough to just run through a stop sign right in front of police.
Nobody has suggested that you're stupid enough to do that but the fact is, you claim to have briefly stopped, you looked left first and then, you may have started rolling again and when you looked right, that is when you saw the police car and realized "Ooops"! And then you still went ahead and made your turn!
Now back to the underlined portion...
What if you had stopped 2 feet short of the line? That is not a legal stop!
What if you had stopped so briefly that it did not appear to the officer that you stopped at all? That is not a legal stop!
What if you had stopped AFTER your bumper went over the line? That is not a legal stop!
Now you could claim you knew all that, but trust me, not everybody does!
Anyways...
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
The police officer takes my license and registration and just leaves to run my records. They didn’t bother to tell me why I was pulled over to begin with and I’m just sitting there wondering what I did wrong. Finally 12 to 15 minutes later the officer comes back to me and says “Sorry, I was supposed to tell you why I pulled you over. You blew through that stop sign. Please sign here.” I was caught off-guard. All I said was “Oh. Really?” I assumed that arguing with the officer right then and there wouldn’t do any good and I didn’t really know what to do. So I just signed and assumed that the only way I could possibly fight this is by going through the city’s set procedures.
Well, your signature is not an admission of guilt nor is it an agreement to anything the officer stated. You simply made a promise to appear or pay on the date indicated on your citation.
As for your assumption that the officer violated policy or procedure, then I'm sorry to say this but no, his failing to inform you of the reason for the stop is not in any way a violation, and his apologizing for not doing so is not an attempt to cover up anything, but simply his way of being polite. The only disclosure that the officer must make is made by handing you a citation which indicated a description/code section number, asking you to sign it and wishing you a good day; in fact he can skip that last part. The citation is indeed the only notice and it does satisfy the requirement to inform you of the charge/alleged violation, and the date, time and place where you must appear to answer to the charge. there are times when a stop may take an "unreasonable period" of time at which the officer may have to disclose the reason prior to the issuing of a citation, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that anything under 20 minutes for the typical traffic stop is considered "reasonable". Yours lasted 12 to 15 minutes? All is good in the world!
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
I suppose the officer’s defense would be that the police car was slowly veering into the intersection only because they were concerned about my “reckless” driving.
The officer need not provide a "defense". He will testify to what he saw, and you'll have your opportunity to attempt to refute any statements by him, either by cross examining him or by offering your own evidenvce.
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
But how would I even relay that whole narrative to the judge anyways, to suggest that the police car slowly rolling into the intersection induced me into maybe not stopping for a sufficient amount of time at the stop sign before making my left turn?
As I expressed in my post above, that analogy makes very little sense if any at all... Had you approached the intersection with the intention of clearly stopping, checking traffic and then deciding if it is safe to proceed or not, chances are, that would have happened. But it sounds to me by your description that you approached with a plan "to stop at the stop sign for an amount of time that was maybe somewhat relatively brief" (that is your description, not mine) and it clearly shows that even you are doubting whether the period of time was sufficient... and as a result you were not likely to stop and yield the right of way as you are supposed to!
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
Would the judge even care?
I honestly don't think so... Looking over to see another vehicle a step ahead of you and in the process on entering the intersection is not a good reason to abbreviate your stop and to proceed through the intersection ahead of them!
1) Judging by your description and the fact that he was into the intersection all while you were still in the process of checking cross traffic, is indicative that he got there before you; therefore, he has the right of way. And yet you opted to go before him...
2) Alternatively, and assuming you both got there at the same time, you are to his left and he is to your right, as such, he still has the right of way and yet, you still violated that part.
3) Lastly for the third possibility, you got there first, he got there after you and/or even rolled his stop... Good luck convincing any judge of that he was in violation and yet you got the ticket!possibility
While none of the 3 descriptions of scenarios I just provided indicate a violation of 22450. Fact is we established the possibility of that earlier. Scenarios (1) & (2) do suggest an additional violation that he could have cited you for; scenario (1) could be cited under VC 21800(a), ansd scenario (2) could be cited under VC 21800(c). Either one would have been applicable in addition to the citation you received for 22450. Don't ask me why the officer didn't cite you for both!
Quote:
Quoting
Canni Bal
And what about the officer not telling me why I was pulled over until the very end? Isn’t this a mistake in official procedure? Does this have any bearing on my case? Would the judge care, especially considering that I can’t really prove this because I have no witnesses?
Again, there was no procedural violation. So that is not likely to save the day for you either.