Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
My question involves a red light camera traffic ticket issued in Culver City, California that will be adjudicated in Los Angeles Superior Court. Violation: VC 21453C: Failure to Stop for Red Signal.
Evening. There were 3 cars: me and 2 others heading in same direction. No oncoming traffic. No waiting cross traffic. Intersection had 5 lanes. Both lanes 1 and 2 were signal-controlled dedicated left turn lanes with red signals. Lanes 3-5 were regular lanes with green signals. I approached intersection in lane 3 but then noticed a disabled car in lane 3 directly ahead. I decided to change lanes but the car in lane 4 was too close, so I went around the stalled car using lane 2.
Ticket arrived today with a link to a video of the incident. The video does indeed show the stalled car. But apparently, the car wasn't stalled but had its left blinker on and was stopped waiting to make a left turn from the wrong lane, i.e., lane 3. The angle of view doesn't show me changing from lane 3 to 2.
Do I have a prayer with a not guilty plea, or am I dead wrong?
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Does the video show your vehicle crossing back into lane 3 COMPLETELY before the limit line in lane 2? I.E. not even one inch of your vehicle crossed the plane of the limit line in lane 2 (think football)? If not, then no, you do not have a prayer.
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
I didn't cross back into lane 3 (which became lane 1 on the other wise of the intersection) until I crossed into the intersection. The issue isn't whether I was in the intersection when the light was red for lanes 1 and 2. I was. The issue is whether the presence of the stopped and presumed stalled car in lane 3 makes any difference. When a car is stalled, I assume the law gives you a pass to get around the obstruction in a prudent and safe way. In this instance, was it reasonable, in the eyes of the law, for me to go around it on the left? And does the fact that it turned out not to be stalled but stopped in the wrong lane make a difference?
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
I didn't cross back into lane 3 (which became lane 1 on the other wise of the intersection) until I crossed into the intersection. The issue isn't whether I was in the intersection when the light was red for lanes 1 and 2. I was.
Actually, the issue is that you entered the intersection from the left turn lane while the left turn arrow was in its red phase. That is the element of the violation that must be proven... Clearly, if that was not a violation, you would not have been cited.
I assume this is the code section you were cited for, 21453(c), correct?
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 provision of the code clearly mandates that your entry into the intersection be made at a time when the signal is green and forbids you from doing so when it is red.
Yes, I realize it says "unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal" but I highly doubt you will find a ciourt that is receptive to that and so I do not see that as saving the day for you simply because that would be you committing one violation (VC 22101 in violation of the direction of a traffic control device - the left turn arrow painted on the pavement and most likely a left turn sign up at the signal mast (and yes, I realize you were not cited for 22101)) and then using it as a defense for another. But, you're free to make the argument if you so choose.
Additionally, the clear intent there is to allow drivers in the straight through lanes to go on green without being obligated to remain at a stop if the left turn signal is visible and in its red phase.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
The issue is whether the presence of the stopped and presumed stalled car in lane 3 makes any difference.
The other issue is that a reasonable and prudent driver wold have been able to slow down, maybe even stop if he is unable to change lanes and his lane is blocked. If you were unable to stop then the likelihood is that you were going too fast for conditions (and again, I realize you were not cited for your speed). Once you've done that, you could have merged into the adjacent lane when it cleared.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
When a car is stalled, I assume the law gives you a pass to get around the obstruction in a prudent and safe way.
I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed. And I simply say that because if you were going to get a "pass" then you would not be holding a citation in your hand! Because as I explained above, you had one reasonable option to make use of.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
In this instance, was it reasonable, in the eyes of the law, for me to go around it on the left?
What would you have done had there been a car in the #2 (per your description) which you described as the rightmost turn lane?
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
And does the fact that it turned out not to be stalled but stopped in the wrong lane make a difference?
It doesn't make a hint of a difference. It doesn't matter what was blocking the lane... It had an impact on you but whether it was stalled, or whether the driver was taking a nap, the language of the law is the same!
Quote:
Quoting
HomeAgain123
Quote:
NOTICE:
NOT CITABLE—SUPERSEDED BY GRANT OF REVIEW
Borzakian is under review which means it is not valid precedent. You can't cite it!
Besides, Borzakian is an attorney... She didn't memorize an argument and recited it in court, (And although her Melendez-Diaz argument was not proper precedent) she played it by ear and reacted to what the officer had to say. She knows the laws and can navigate the evidence code easily and so she can manage.... Most people aren't going to be able to come close!
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Based on the responses so far, it appears as if this isn’t the slam dunk I thought it might be. So, as a practical matter, I’ll probably pay the bail and go to traffic school.
But, just for fun, let me follow out the logic of my argument a little more.
This is my general argument: In the presence of odd, unusual, or hazardous situations, laws and regulations often get modified or suspended – to a degree. How they get suspended or modified depends on the specific situation.
Consider this: A vehicle is stalled on a freeway in lane 1 of a four-lane road. Traffic has slowed, of course, because of the obstruction. Cars in lane 1 behind the stalled car can do one of three things: (1) wait for the car to move or be moved, (2) go around the car on the right by illegally passing on the right, (3) go around the car on the left by driving a fully-functioning car on the shoulder/median [not sure what that leftmost lane you aren’t supposed to drive on is called]. Most people do either (2) or (3) and I suspect that no one has ever gotten a ticket for doing do, even though the behavior is “technically” illegal.
Back to my situation. We will never know, but I suspect that if this was not a red light camera intersection, and a cop stationed there had observed the situation and my behavior, he wouldn’t have stopped and cited me. I was not going fast, as was suggested I might have been. When I went around the stalled car, I had slowed to significantly less that the posted limit, maybe 15 or 20 mph. Moreover, since my behavior seemed so reasonable, I would have done the same thing even had I seen an officer at the intersection.
I see what I did as completely analogous to the hypothetical freeway situation I described, the difference being that in my case, a red light camera was present that has no ability to take into consideration odd, unusual, or hazardous situations. How is my logic faulty?
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
go around the car on the right by illegally passing on the right
Its not illegal to pass on the right on the freeway! As long as you're in a lane and not on the shoulder.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
go around the car on the left by driving a fully-functioning car on the shoulder/median [not sure what that leftmost lane you aren’t supposed to drive on is called].
That would be illegal and could subject you to a citation. And yes, it would be called the "left shoulder".
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
How is my logic faulty?
No one is saying its "faulty"... I can only speak for my self when I say I simply highly doubt you're going to find a judge... Any judge who's definition of "reasonable" comes close to yours.
And therein lies the problem with most traffic citations. Drivers are, more often than not,convinced that their actions are "reasonable" until they get cited by an officer who disagrees and are later convicted by a judge who also disagrees.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
We will never know, but I suspect that if this was not a red light camera intersection, and a cop stationed there had observed the situation and my behavior, he wouldn’t have stopped and cited me.
Actually, the evidence that you will likely end up having introduced against you in this case, was reviewed by a police officer who subsequently decided as to whether the citation should be issued or not.
Quote:
Quoting
douglasssmith
maybe 15 or 20 mph.
While your speed at the moment you entered the intersection should does appear on either the video, the photos or both, your speed is not an element of the offence charged and it does not mitigate your guilt or innocence.
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Quote:
Quoting
That Guy
Borzakian is under review which means it is not valid precedent. You can't cite it!
Where did you get this from? Everything I have read says that Borzakian was not asked to be reviewed by Beverly Hills, but the city asked for the ruling to be depublished. It was accepted for review on the court's own motion, but the city's motion to depublish was denied.
Quote:
S201474 B229748 Second Appellate District, Div. 7 PEOPLE v. BORZAKIAN
(ANNETTE)
Review granted on the court’s own motion; briefing deferred
The request for an order directing depublication of the opinion in the above-entitled appeal is
denied.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/minutes/SMAY0912.PDF
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Quote:
Quoting
HomeAgain123
Where did you get this from? Everything I have read says that Borzakian was not asked to be reviewed by Beverly Hills, but the city asked for the ruling to be depublished. It was accepted for review on the court's own motion, but the city's motion to depublish was denied.
See Cal Rule of Court 8.1105(e)(1). While the court denied the motion to de-publish the case, the grant of review changes the status of the case so that it is considered no longer published. Neither Goldsmith nor Borzakian are citable now.
Re: Caught on Red Light Camera Passing a "Stalled" Car
Quote:
Quoting
themadnorwegian
See Cal Rule of Court 8.1105(e)(1). While the court denied the motion to de-publish the case, the grant of review changes the status of the case so that it is considered no longer published. Neither Goldsmith nor Borzakian are citable now.
That is interesting. We learn something new every day. However, looking at the Borzakian case is quite valid for a red light camera ticket today because it is based on Kahled and Melendez-Diaz... neither of which are under review.