Are Traffic Signs Enforceable if They're Posted on Private Property

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

I received a citation for 22101(d) failure to obey sign. I intend to fight the ticket based on the fact that the sign(s) for 'no right turn' were on private property in a private parking lot. At the actual entrance to the public roadway (before entering) there are no signs indicating 'no right turn'. How can I be cited for signs in a private parking lot. There is no jurisdiction for that. There were locations for a 'no right turn' sign to be placed on the public right-of-way to be seen before entering the road but there were none, therefore I entered the road legally. Right?

The problem is that most often it will be the city/county that orders the builder to place those signs. t may, in fact, be a city owned sign, too. As such they are placed with the approval of the city and not at the whim of the property owner. You might want to do some research before you run the risk of losing at trial and lose the opportunity for traffic school.

NVM, cdwjava beat me to it. Forgot to refresh before posting after my computer froze.

Could you see the sign as you approached the entrance to the parking lot?

I thought about that. But my contention is that since I'm not on the public road, I don't have to pay attention (for traffic citation purposes) to posted signs that are not posted for cars in the public right-of-way (any more than I could get cited for going 20 in a 10 in a parking lot because there is a sign). The code does say that signs could be adjacent to the intersection...but what exactly does that mean. I'm not worried about missing out on traffic school, I'm not going to waste the 8 hrs and costs.

- - - Updated - - -

The signs were before the exit. One about 75ft before. The other a good 10 ft before the crosswalk (the intersection)

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

I thought about that. But my contention is that since I'm not on the public road, I don't have to pay attention (for traffic citation purposes) to posted signs that are not posted for cars in the public right-of-way (any more than I could get cited for going 20 in a 10 in a parking lot because there is a sign). The code does say that signs could be adjacent to the intersection...but what exactly does that mean. I'm not worried about missing out on traffic school, I'm not going to waste the 8 hrs and costs.

---

If you go to trial, you can - and likely will - lose the opportunity to attend traffic school and can thus pay your insurance company for the point on your license each month for the next three years.

But, it's your call. Expect to lose at trial unless you can show that the sign was not approved or posted by the city and was merely posted as a suggestion by the builder of the lot. I don't know of any that are done without being part of the city-approved/directed design plan, but, I suppose there is a first time for everything.

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

I thought about that. But my contention is that since I'm not on the public road, I don't have to pay attention (for traffic citation purposes) to posted signs that are not posted for cars in the public right-of-way (any more than I could get cited for going 20 in a 10 in a parking lot because there is a sign). The code does say that signs could be adjacent to the intersection...but what exactly does that mean. I'm not worried about missing out on traffic school, I'm not going to waste the 8 hrs and costs.

- - - Updated - - -

The signs were before the exit. One about 75ft before. The other a good 10 ft before the crosswalk (the intersection)

---

I'm confused because in post #1 you said there are no signs and now you say there are two? Can you link us to the location you are referring to? The sign that was 75' before the exit/intersection is most likely outside of the public R/W. However, the sign that was 10' away was most likely within the public R/W of the street you were turning onto. R/W widths vary but the R/W line is typically 12' (+/-) parallel to curb face. Also, often additional R/W is dedicated at commercial driveway approaches.

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

... my contention is that since I'm not on the public road, I don't have to pay attention....

---

You could not really be as short sighted as to think that simply because you are in a private parking lot, that you do not have to pay attention and its like the old wild west... Make your own rules and if anyone complains, shoot 'em! Are you? In fact, in a strange backhanded way, most of us have signed a contract obliging us to use a great amount of due care in the way we operate our vehicle(s); whether we are doing so on a public/private roadway/highway. Check your auto insurance policy and you will see...

Think about it, when you are in an accident, whether it is against another car or a pedestrian, or a structure for that matter, and your insurance company initiates an investigation because now there is potential that they may have to pay $$$ at the cost of you wanting a choice as to whether you should pay attention or not, do traffic laws including speed limits (or better yet, reasonable speeds) and/or illegal turns make a difference as to who pays what?

Fire lanes, by the way, are often painted in private parking lots. Ever tried to leave your car in one for a considerable period of time? How about handicapped parking spaces, ever try to make a u-turn while using one as a turning point? Do you think you could not get cited for "stopping" (which, by definition is the same as Parking and/or standing) because it is in a private parking lot? Or parking in a private lot without the owner's express or implied permission. There are plenty of examples where your line of thinking would cause some blow up in your face that is likely to get you to reconsider...

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

The code does say that signs could be adjacent to the intersection...but what exactly does that mean.

---

You picked what is likely to be considered the least important phrase in the entire code section. This has nothing to do with private parking lots. It is far from being related to public right of way, where that begins or where it ends or how many feet a sidewalk normally is. Nor does it change the fact that your citation is valid and the violation is enforceable. Here is the code section in its entirety:

CVC 22101

(a) The Department of Transportation or local authorities in respect to highways under their respective jurisdictions, may cause official traffic control devices to be placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections.

(b) When turning movements are required at an intersection notice of such requirement shall be given by erection of a sign, unless an additional clearly marked traffic lane is provided for the approach to the turning movement, in which event notice as applicable to such additional traffic lane shall be given by any official traffic control device.

(c) When right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an intersection notice of such prohibition shall be given by erection of a sign.

(d) When official traffic control devices are placed as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to disobey the directions of such official traffic control devices.

I'll also include a citation from Day v. City of Fontana, 19 P. 3d 1196 - Cal: Supreme Court 2001, but this is only to back up my method of interpretation and not the meaning itself.

[If] The issue is one of statutory construction... [then the court's] fundamental task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the lawmakers so as to effectuate the purpose of the statute. (Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 937 P.2d 290.) We begin by examining the statutory language, giving the words their usual and ordinary meaning. (People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 230, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228.) If there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. (Id. at pp. 230-231, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, 6 P.3d 228; People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151, 48 460*460 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 906 P.2d 1232.) If, however, the statutory terms are ambiguous, then we may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history. (People v. Coronado, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 151, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 906 P.2d 1232.) In such circumstances, we "`select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.; see Escobedo v. Estate of Snider (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1214, 1223, 60 Cal. Rptr.2d 722, 930 P.2d 979.)

"Adjacent", in this case, is used in its most basic meaning. It means lying near, close, or contiguous; adjoining... Being used with another phrase indicating "...placed or erected within or adjacent to intersections...", the purpose and intent behind its use is to enforce that the requirement is that this sign can be seen by a reasonably attentive driver, who is making a reasonable attempt to drive in a lawful manner...

Whether you fit the above description or not, there is no escaping the fact that you did notice them... "Them"... meaning the signs. After all, you are in court arguing that their placement in not proper and their impact is unenforceable. You can backpedal your way to saying "I only noticed them after...", the court will revert back to the reasonable man standard and exclude your unique assessment.

The phrase that follows the one you found confusing is of the greatest importance here. The purpose for this particular code section, and the purpose for the signs which you would rather assume non existent, is "to regulate or prohibit turning movements at such intersections". So, the critical question then: is the intersection in question part of a public highway?

And the elements of the offense that must be proven by the prosecution to secure a conviction are as follows:

1) The movement that you made which ended up in your getting cited, was it made on a public highway while you were the driver of a vehicle (all definitions of underlined terms as per the vehicle code)?

2) Pursuant to subsection (d) of 22101, and upon approach to the intersection in question, were there official traffic control devices (signs) posted that regulate or prohibit the movement of traffic through such intersection?

3) Did you disobey the direction of such traffic control devices?

If you can only answer "YES" to all three questions then you are guilty as charged.

So the question here is NOT where the signs are posted, but the movement that they regulate or prohibit, was it made on a public or private roadway/highway? If it is made on a private roadway, then there are provisions of the vehicle code that certainly do apply. If it is made on a public roadway or highway, then of course, the full effect of the vehicle code would naturally apply accordingly.

For That Guy:

No, I am not short sighted, nor do I think this is the wild west. I am simply here looking for some advice/help as to how to fight what I think is an unfair citation...because I can't help but notice that if two cars crash into each other in a store parking lot the police will not even take a report because it happened on private property, but if they can get some money out of it, and score some "citation points", all of a sudden they will get involved and write you a ticket for something you did in that same lot.

I will have to take some other time to sit and read your reply completely as it seems very thorough. But after scanning through it I think the gist of what you're saying is that I will lose my case, which is not something I find too surprising.

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

No, I am not short sighted, nor do I think this is the wild west. I am simply here looking for some advice/help as to how to fight what I think is an unfair citation...

---

I am not sure I agree with you about this being an "unfair" citation, but that is a matter or perspective. Even if it were unfair, that does not necessarily mean unjustified or improper.

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

.... .because I can't help but notice that if two cars crash into each other in a store parking lot the police will not even take a report because it happened on private property.

---

I can only offer an opinion when it comes to that issue. I’ll start by saying that it would be safe to assume that if it was a collision where someone was injured, then you can bet the police will be there. In fact I can tell you without any doubt that the LAPD (one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the nation) will not even consider investigating an accident and issuing a report, even those on public highways, unless someone was injured. With that said, I do not know if this is even part of the picture but here is how I see it: The reason(s) they do not come out is simply because it is really a waste of their time and a waste of tax payer money… Here is why… an injury free car accident is a civil matter between both drivers and in the end it boils down to being a case about damages to one or both vehicles and the monetary cost to make repairs. The police do not get involved with cases where one person owes the other money no matter what the underlying reasons are. Besides, even if they were to show up to write a report, again, for a civil matter where the presumption is that everyone is insured as required by law, and as such the matter will more than likely be handled by each driver's insurance, and generally, insurers do not follow the findings in a police report. They conduct their own investigation, come to their own conclusions and settle the case accordingly…

So at the end of the day, the police showing up and spending hours interviewing, questioning, reconstructing, and writing reports for nothing... Again, nothing but a waste of taxpayer money all while they could be out patrolling the streets (and yes, maybe even issuing citations that will get decided in a court of law).

Now, if you decided to zip through in front of a store entrance at 40 mph because you don't think speed limits or yielding to pedestrians in a marked crosswalk applies to a private lot, and happened to hit a pedestrian coming out of the store.... It becomes a different issue then, and you can bet the police will show up. Also, in spite of the fact that the police might refuse to complete a collision report for an accident that occurred on private property, the damages caused by one driver's fault or the other, would have to get covered and paid for somehow. The only way to resolve that would be for both insurers to agree on one party committing some sort of violation of law. So while your example might imply that traffic laws do not apply on private property, fact still remains that they do apply, in one form or another and regardless of whether the police showed up to write a useless report or not!

Here is another angle, the private parking lot you are describing here, is located on private property and yet it is open to the general public, this makes it completely different than, for example, your own private driveway at home.

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

.... but if they can get some money out of it, and score some "citation points", all of a sudden they will get involved and write you a ticket for something you did in that same lot.

---

Once again, you were not cited for ANYTHING you did in a parking lot. You were cited form making an illegal turn on a public highway.

But still, to address your contention that it is about money, lets stop and think about that for a minute.... And let me go back to the accident scenario for a minute as well… Most accidents occur as a result of someone violating one traffic law or another... Meaning if the cops show up to investigate and write a report, more likely than not, the police is going to find someone at fault, and end up sticking that someone with a citation... So if it was really about money, then you would assume they would show up to an accident scene in a private parking lot with their hands extended, and yet the most likely, even according to you, they will pass...

I realize this post is getting a bit long but you brought up "citation points" and I find that comment extremely interesting considering the real events that might occur under the circumstances. I would like to expand on that by adding one more thing. This is while playing out a scenario where the police came out, investigated, found that someone violated some provision of the vehicle code, and issued a report but also issued a traffic citation. Now, we move our attention to the procedure that the driver’s insurer is following in the meantime, and assuming the police did as decent job of determining fault, it is also likely that the driver’s insurer will come to the same conclusion. It is now the duty of the insurer to report their finding to the DMV declaring their insured, as being at fault for the accident. As we all know, being at fault for an accident also carries one violation point. So, when an insurer reports an accident to the DMV, they also report the party at fault and that results in the addition of a violation point to one’s record. Assuming that person went to court, if it is truly his/her fault for the accident, then they would likely be found guilty of the offense charged in the citation as well. And the penalty for the citation then becomes a monetary fine in addition to what a typical moving violation will get the driver, one violation point added to his record. However, there are provisions in the California Vehicle Code that state that with the exception of vehicle code offense which, by their very nature, carry two violation points, there can only be one single point that gets added to the driver’s record if those points were to result from one act/incident. (Meaning, one citation alleges two violations, if convicted of both, only one point is applied to your record; alternatively, one violation resulted in an at fault accident, as well as a citation issued by the investigating officer, only one violation point added to your record).

12810

(j) A conviction for only one violation arising from one occasion of arrest or citation shall be counted in determining the violation point count for the purposes of this section.

So since there are now two points that came to light due to him committing that one violation and at the same time and as a result of the same offense, caused the accident, his record can only accumulate one of those two points. By this analogy, and since the insurer is likely to settle the claim and report its findings within 30 days whereas the citation may not require your appearance for another 60 days, the insurer’s report will end up causing the point to appear on that driver’s record, thereby making the point related to the conviction of the citation one that is not likely to count against the driver. Therefore, the penalty that he suffered as a result of the police issuing a report and subsequently issuing a citation was only a monetary fine that the defendant paid as a result. So if we were to attribute the violation point on one’s record as having resulted from his insurer reporting him as having been at fault for the accident, and while I don’t really personally know you, you seem to be the type of person who would be one of the first few people in line claiming: “Oh… The police only showed up so they can pretend they are there to investigate and make a report, when in fact they simply issued a citation whose only intent and purpose was to collect revenue“.

So which do you think is better, them showing up to make a report, or them refraining unless there are any injuries and then, the stakes are higher?

Set all of the above aside though, you make it sound as if they forced you to disobey the direction of the signs just so they could collect money. You might be surprised that the police department makes very little if any off of traffic citations. The city might get a percentage, the courts get what is called a "Court Construction Fee" and a "security fee", the county certainly gets a percentage... The rest of the money goes into the state general fund, and yes, it might end up trickling down back into the police department but how else do we expect them to operate? Since they participate in enforcing traffic laws, and maintaining order, then just like any other agency they get paid for a job that they do! And even if their budgets are directly related to funds collected from traffic citations, then it works just like any other governmental agency; you get what you put in…

Quote:

---

Quoting tx91791

---

I will have to take some other time to sit and read your reply completely as it seems very thorough. But after scanning through it I think the gist of what you're saying is that I will lose my case, which is not something I find too surprising.

---

Yes, I am opinionated and I do have quite a few things to say normally... I will even admit that I do speculate a lot.. But only to demonstrate how my point does indeed apply to the actual situation, or to fill in a gap that the OP might have left open. But keep in mind, I do not make up the laws nor do I enforce them. You came here and asked a question, I provided you with what I believe to be a correct and pertinent response. The fact that it happened to work against your wishes here, as well as in many of the cases that people post on here, was not because I made it so, instead, it was dictated by the acts and/or omissions you or they committed when you were cited and also by the facts that you brought here with you and posted about!