Expired Registration and No Proof of Insurance

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
North Hollywood, Ca
Court: Chatsworth Courthouse

My story is kind of weird. My plates are expired and so was my insurance (even though it was renewed) i had just left the card at home. I got 2 tickets. The first time i got pulled over (2 weeks ago) was for my plates, and he gave me a fixit ticket for the plates (correctable) and nothing for the insurance even though it was expired.

The 2nd time i got pulled over (last week) was again for the plates but this time the ticket was again for the plates (correctable) and No proof of insurance (Non-Correctable) Even though the cop said I can just take proof for both and get it cleared. and Both tickets i have to go to the same court. I felt that these officers were messing around with me because i got pulled over for expired plates yet they asked if they can search the car which i let, and they even did a pat down search on me.

My questions are.

1. How will i handle this since it is 2 tickets ?
2. If i show proof of registration to the clerk at the courthouse will it be dismissed off both tickets ?
3. Im worried about the POI. I checked the date i was given the ticket 3/2013 which was last week and the date my new insurance started 12/2012 and expires 06/2013, whats going to happen about this citation ? i read the fines and they are a hefty price and im getting stressed out?
4. And finally, On my insurance card it has my sisters name. However i got the ticket. Does my sister have to come with me in order to clear POI ?

Any addition info and tips are welcomed. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Quoting GabeGasa

---

1. How will i handle this since it is 2 tickets ?

---

On two different court dates.

You're lucky, the second officer could have charged an additional for offense for a failure to correct after the first notice.

Quote:

---

2. If i show proof of registration to the clerk at the courthouse will it be dismissed off both tickets ?

---

After paying the $25 (or whatever it is today) admin. fee, it should be. However, the second cite has two offenses on it so you might have to wait until you go before a judge on that one.

Quote:

---

3. Im worried about the POI. I checked the date i was given the ticket 3/2013 which was last week and the date my new insurance started 12/2012 and expires 06/2013, whats going to happen about this citation ? i read the fines and they are a hefty price and im getting stressed out?

---

If you can show the judge that you were insured at the time of the stop, he should dismiss with only an admin fee. Consider it a correctable violation that can ONLY be "corrected" by a judge or commissioner.

Quote:

---

4. And finally, On my insurance card it has my sisters name. However i got the ticket. Does my sister have to come with me in order to clear POI ?

---

As long as it covers the vehicle, you should be good.

Can i go see the judge when i go clear my ticket for registration ? or i have to schedule and come back another day ?

Quote:

---

Quoting GabeGasa

---

Can i go see the judge when i go clear my ticket for registration ? or i have to schedule and come back another day ?

---

Each court will have a different process. For most simple fixit tickets you should be able to clear them with the clerk at the court. With the other one, you will have to have a judge/commissioner clear the insurance violation and whether you can get in early to see a judge is something only the clerk can answer.

Check the court website as it might have some of these answers for you.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Quote:

---

Quoting GabeGasa

---

And finally, On my insurance card it has my sisters name. However i got the ticket. Does my sister have to come with me in order to clear POI ?

---

As long as it covers the vehicle, you should be good.

---

What if his sister is the policy holder and for some reason he's excluded?

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

What if his sister is the policy holder and for some reason he's excluded?

---

Since 16028(a) simply requires the presenting of proof of insurance, and NOT a policy to include exclusions, I think he's good.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Since 16028(a) simply requires the presenting of proof of insurance, and NOT a policy to include exclusions, I think he's good.

---

Not to beat a somewhat injured horse but 16028(e) is specific that the driver must be covered.

(e) A person issued a notice to appear for a violation of subdivision (a) may personally appear before the clerk of the court, as designated in the notice to appear, and provide written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, showing that the driver was in compliance with that section at the time the notice to appear for violating subdivision (a) was issued. In lieu of the personal appearance, the person may submit by mail to the court written evidence of having had financial responsibility at the time the notice to appear was issued. Upon receipt by the clerk of that written evidence of financial responsibility in a form consistent with Section 16020, further proceedings on the notice to appear for the violation of subdivision (a) shall be dismissed.

Ah, but that says it must show that the driver was "in compliance" with 16028(a), not that he was specifically covered. In looking at my insurance cards right now, NONE of them indicate who is the authorized driver and who is excluded.

And the only reference to "name" in 16020 is for the name of the insurance company.

16020. (a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at
all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to
Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence
of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.
(b) "Evidence of financial responsibility" means any of the
following:
(1) A form issued by an insurance company or charitable risk pool,
as specified by the department pursuant to Section 4000.37.
(2) If the owner is a self-insurer, as provided in Section 16052
or a depositor, as provided in Section 16054.2, the certificate of
self-insurance or the assignment of deposit letter issued by the
department.
(3) An insurance covering note or binder pursuant to Section 382
or 382.5 of the Insurance Code.
(4) A showing that the vehicle is owned or leased by, or under the
direction of, the United States or a public entity, as defined in
Section 811.2 of the Government Code.
(c) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also may be obtained by a law enforcement officer and
court personnel from an electronic reporting system when that system
becomes available for use by law enforcement officers.
(d) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also includes any of the following:
(1) The name of the insurance company and the number of an
insurance policy or surety bond that was in effect at the time of the
accident or at the time that evidence of financial responsibility is
required to be provided pursuant to Section 16028, if that
information is contained in the vehicle registration records of the
department.
(2) The identifying motor carrier of property permit number issued
by the Department of the California Highway Patrol to the motor
carrier of property as defined in Section 34601, and displayed on the
motor vehicle in the manner specified by the Department of the
California Highway Patrol.
(3) The identifying number issued to the household goods carrier,
passenger stage carrier, or transportation charter party carrier by
the Public Utilities Commission and displayed on the motor vehicle in
the manner specified by the commission.
(e) Evidence of financial responsibility does not include an
identification number in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision
(d) if the carrier is currently suspended by the issuing agency for
lack or lapse of insurance or other form of financial responsibility.

So, if the card complies with the law, and he has been cited for 16028(a) ...

16028. (a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to
subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic
collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who
drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of
financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the
time the demand is made. The evidence of financial responsibility may
be provided using a mobile electronic device. However, a peace
officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining
whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.

He has complied. If there is any further requirement, it is likely an issue for a civil court in the case of a collision or other injury or damage for which a claim can be made.

Now, can it be twisted to imply that the section says that the driver be specifically covered? I suppose. But, since this is not how the section has been applied, and no officer is ever going to ask to read the full insurance documents to try and identify whether the current driver might be excluded (nor is there any law that grants us the authority to request it), I doubt that this would be seen as a reasonable standard or that the court would even ask.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

Ah, but that says it must show that the driver was "in compliance" with 16028(a), not that he was specifically covered. In looking at my insurance cards right now, NONE of them indicate who is the authorized driver and who is excluded.

And the only reference to "name" in 16020 is for the name of the insurance company.

16020. (a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at
all times be able to establish financial responsibility pursuant to
Section 16021, and shall at all times carry in the vehicle evidence
of the form of financial responsibility in effect for the vehicle.
(b) "Evidence of financial responsibility" means any of the
following:
(1) A form issued by an insurance company or charitable risk pool,
as specified by the department pursuant to Section 4000.37.
(2) If the owner is a self-insurer, as provided in Section 16052
or a depositor, as provided in Section 16054.2, the certificate of
self-insurance or the assignment of deposit letter issued by the
department.
(3) An insurance covering note or binder pursuant to Section 382
or 382.5 of the Insurance Code.
(4) A showing that the vehicle is owned or leased by, or under the
direction of, the United States or a public entity, as defined in
Section 811.2 of the Government Code.
(c) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also may be obtained by a law enforcement officer and
court personnel from an electronic reporting system when that system
becomes available for use by law enforcement officers.
(d) For purposes of this section, "evidence of financial
responsibility" also includes any of the following:
(1) The name of the insurance company and the number of an
insurance policy or surety bond that was in effect at the time of the
accident or at the time that evidence of financial responsibility is
required to be provided pursuant to Section 16028, if that
information is contained in the vehicle registration records of the
department.
(2) The identifying motor carrier of property permit number issued
by the Department of the California Highway Patrol to the motor
carrier of property as defined in Section 34601, and displayed on the
motor vehicle in the manner specified by the Department of the
California Highway Patrol.
(3) The identifying number issued to the household goods carrier,
passenger stage carrier, or transportation charter party carrier by
the Public Utilities Commission and displayed on the motor vehicle in
the manner specified by the commission.
(e) Evidence of financial responsibility does not include an
identification number in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision
(d) if the carrier is currently suspended by the issuing agency for
lack or lapse of insurance or other form of financial responsibility.

So, if the card complies with the law, and he has been cited for 16028(a) ...

16028. (a) Upon the demand of a peace officer pursuant to
subdivision (b) or upon the demand of a peace officer or traffic
collision investigator pursuant to subdivision (c), every person who
drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall provide evidence of
financial responsibility for the vehicle that is in effect at the
time the demand is made. The evidence of financial responsibility may
be provided using a mobile electronic device. However, a peace
officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining
whether the vehicle is being driven in violation of this subdivision.

He has complied. If there is any further requirement, it is likely an issue for a civil court in the case of a collision or other injury or damage for which a claim can be made.

Now, can it be twisted to imply that the section says that the driver be specifically covered? I suppose. But, since this is not how the section has been applied, and no officer is ever going to ask to read the full insurance documents to try and identify whether the current driver might be excluded (nor is there any law that grants us the authority to request it), I doubt that this would be seen as a reasonable standard or that the court would even ask.

---

No, no... That was part of my consideration but:

Point 1) I wasn't suggesting that a driver must pull out the entire policy or the binder to disclose coverages and exclusions.

Point 2) Since you only posted 16020 (just to give you as hard time) it really wouldn't take much twisting to show that the requirement for the driver to provide proof is independent from the responsibility of the owner. Basic statutory construction: From subsection (a) of 16020, the legislature opted to place the responsibility to show proof upon demand upon BOTH ALL drivers AND ALL owners - AT ALL times.

16020. (a) All drivers and all owners of a motor vehicle shall at all times be able to establish financial responsibility....

Of course when you hit section 16021 it goes back to the "or" again... So there goes my point.

Point 3) (to combine both 1 & 2) And while I realize this maybe the way it is enforced, I am sure you'll agree with me when i say that showing an insurance card with someone else's name does not really establish proper coverage. In other words, one cannot truly establish proof of coverage without reviewing the declarations page of the policy. Case in point: typically, as I am sure you are aware, if your household includes any drivers under the age of 21, you must either specifically include them or specifically exclude them. So lets assume that Gabe here is 19 YO, lives with his parents and his sister whose 24, she has a policy that specifically excludes Gabe. He gets her keys and goes out for a drive and gets cited, while its true that the vehicle is covered under a policy, Venus Insurance would decline a claim in a heartbeat as soon as they find out that Gabe was driving. So in essence, he was not covered. And so while in this situation law enforcement and the court would be satisfied that there is sufficient liability coverage, truth of the matter is it does not even exist. This would obviously place the burden upon Gabe and his 24 YO sister as the liable part(ies) in case he -God forbid- was in an accident in her car. In other words, the way the law is enforced is not accomplishing its goal of enforcing basic liability coverage on every driver so as to protect other drivers on the road.

And yes, I am actually writing the state legislature as we speak... :D

And when the card that is presented need only have the vehicle and the policy number, that's good for the officer and - I strongly suspect - will be just fine with any court. I seriously doubt any court is going to spend anything more than a few seconds on this matter unless there is some reason to believe that there might be some more funny business.

What the law MIGHT be construed to say and how it is actually applied in the real world can sometimes conflict, with the latter usually prevailing.

Also, I suspect if you look at your proof of insurance it MIGHT indicate your name, but I doubt it indicates all the possible authorized drivers or even excluded drivers. I have seen cards issued after an exclusion, and there is nothing mentioned on them. We find out about the exclusion much later if the other party calls to complain and all we can do is refer them back to their own insurer or ask that they speak with an attorney because there is nothing we can do.