Cited for Violating an Obscured No Left Turn Sign

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

VC 21461(A) - No Left Turn 830 AM to 930 AM.

Turned left out of public school parking lot. Pulled over and cited by LA County Sheriff lying in wait, who claimed I made an illegal left turn despite there being a sign "clearly indicating" it was not permitted.

Here's the sign:

http://ichabodscranium.com/illegal-l...n-i-think-not/

Any need to hire a ticket fighting service, or can anyone here be kind enough to help me cite the relevant MUTCD and statutes that kills this citation? I very much appreciate everyone's assistance.

Nothing in the MUTCD could possibly kill the citation. The MUTCD isn't binding. Anyhow, the closest thing you'll find is

Placement of a traffic control device should be within the road user’s view so that adequate visibility is
provided. To aid in conveying the proper meaning, the traffic control device should be appropriately positioned
with respect to the location, object, or situation to which it applies. The location and legibility of the traffic
control device should be such that a road user has adequate time to make the proper response in both day and
night conditions.

Note that the "should" here in standards speak isn't binding, so even if MUTCD was binding, it wouldn't be an absolute requirement.
Further, while it's hard to tell with the limited picture provided, it would appear that if you actually STOPPED at the limit line the turn restriction would be perfectly legible and since you were stopped anyhow, it would be no problem with having "adequate time" to make the proper response.

Donzoh will be by with non-specific roll-the-dice technicalities.

While I agree with flyingron in general, it is possible to convince a court or prosecutor to dismiss a ticket based upon the fact that a sign is obscured. He's also correct that it's not a "gimme". When you're attempting to prove that a sign was obscured, you should anticipate that the court or prosecutor will want to see a picture that clarifies how visible the sign is when you're actually stopped behind the stop sign, as well as a distance shot showing that you did not also overlook a other signs or pavement markings.

You appear to have taken that photo from some distance back from the stop sign. That way it looks favorable to you.

Now be honest, and provide a photo that you take at the stop sign, where you'd be sitting just before you make the turn.

Quote:

---

Quoting adjusterjack

---

You appear to have taken that photo from some distance back from the stop sign. That way it looks favorable to you.

Now be honest, and provide a photo that you take at the stop sign, where you'd be sitting just before you make the turn.

---

Yes, I will post shortly and you'll see it is as equally obscured at the stop sign.

But I find this, in general, pretty interesting. There's nothing on the books about a sign being obscured? So even if a sign were totally obscured, I wouldn't have a viable case?

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Nothing in the MUTCD could possibly kill the citation. The MUTCD isn't binding. Anyhow, the closest thing you'll find is

Placement of a traffic control device should be within the road user’s view so that adequate visibility is
provided. To aid in conveying the proper meaning, the traffic control device should be appropriately positioned
with respect to the location, object, or situation to which it applies. The location and legibility of the traffic
control device should be such that a road user has adequate time to make the proper response in both day and
night conditions.

Note that the "should" here in standards speak isn't binding, so even if MUTCD was binding, it wouldn't be an absolute requirement.
Further, while it's hard to tell with the limited picture provided, it would appear that if you actually STOPPED at the limit line the turn restriction would be perfectly legible and since you were stopped anyhow, it would be no problem with having "adequate time" to make the proper response.

Donzoh will be by with non-specific roll-the-dice technicalities.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "non-specific roll-the-dice technicalities." I think my suggestions have been pretty specific, but I also understand that other defendants aren't going to get as far into the weeds as I have in defending traffic infractions. In that case, I have offered other suggestions that are less involved. On the question of rolling the dice, I've having trouble understanding what all the concern around here is regarding the "risk" posed by TBD. The fact is that if a defendant doesn't like the TBD result, they can go back into court at Trial de Novo, which is the same place most defendants go at the beginning because they don't know what they're doing. My approach requires the prosecution to prove its case twice, and even after that, a respectful, prepared, well-dressed defendant is frequently allowed Traffic School upon conviction.

In the above case, I agree with you that the MUTCD will not be binding but the photo provided by the OP might be persuasive in their defense. A fair-minded judge is might well understand that the driver would not reasonably see such a sign and therefore have no awareness of the turn prohibition. Furthermore, if the deputy adds words to his TBD like "clearly indicating" to his TBD response (assuming he does respond), a photo like the one shown here might seriously call into question his credibility.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

In the above case, I agree with you that the MUTCD will not be binding but the photo provided by the OP might be persuasive in their defense. A fair-minded judge is might well understand that the driver would not reasonably see such a sign and therefore have no awareness of the turn prohibition. Furthermore, if the deputy adds words to his TBD like "clearly indicating" to his TBD response (assuming he does respond), a photo like the one shown here might seriously call into question his credibility.

---

Thank you for your assistance. It is much appreciated.

So am I to understand that while the MUTCD is not binding, there is also nothing in statute that says a sign must be visible and legible?

Quote:

---

Quoting lmsmedley

---

Thank you for your assistance. It is much appreciated.

So am I to understand that while the MUTCD is not binding, there is also nothing in statute that says a sign must be visible and legible?

---

I think the correct idea is that you can't simply present your photo and say that because the sign was obstructed, at least from one position as the driver approaches, you are therefore Not Guilty. However, MUTCD or not, you might be able to show that a reasonable and prudent driver might be unaware of the sign and therefore, unknowingly make the prohibited left turn. You might present this defense to two different judges and get two different answers. It seems to me that the tree obstruction makes this well worth the effort at Trial By Written Declaration, sending one or more photos along with your TR205 Form. California Law is very friendly here as you can still go into court later if you get the wrong verdict at TBD.

Quote:

---

Quoting donzoh1

---

I think the correct idea is that you can't simply present your photo and say that because the sign was obstructed, at least from one position as the driver approaches, you are therefore Not Guilty. However, MUTCD or not, you might be able to show that a reasonable and prudent driver might be unaware of the sign and therefore, unknowingly make the prohibited left turn. You might present this defense to two different judges and get two different answers. It seems to me that the tree obstruction makes this well worth the effort at Trial By Written Declaration, sending one or more photos along with your TR205 Form. California Law is very friendly here as you can still go into court later if you get the wrong verdict at TBD.

---

Got it. Thank you.

Do you think there's any value in using Ticketbust.com or other such services? The notion that they have probably seen this many times and have learned the best approach to challenging in a TBD seems to have some weight.

Quote:

---

Quoting lmsmedley

---

Got it. Thank you.

Do you think there's any value in using Ticketbust.com or other such services? The notion that they have probably seen this many times and have learned the best approach to challenging in a TBD seems to have some weight.

---

I don't know anything about ticketbust but really the TBD process is quite simple. I doubt that they'll take any pics or have pics available of the intersection. They could use yours though. Not sure what their fee structure is but I'm betting you'd be better off doing it yourself. Your case is really quite simple. At TBD, there are several possibilities. First, the officer may not respond and you could win for that reason. Second, the officer could respond and you still might win due to the obstruction issue. Third, the officer might respond and the court might not buy your obstruction argument.

Your TBD narrative could say something like: "The tree obstructs visibility for drivers approaching this intersection such that a driver may not reasonably know that left turns are not permitted. I respectfully request that the court enter a Not Guilty verdict in this case." Or, you can admit outright that you made the turn (which the court is probably going to assume anyway). The negative presented by admitting this is that if the officer fails to respond, you might be convicted for admitting guilt when there was no admissible evidence or testimony proving that. I would agree that pictures from different angles might be helpful as well. There may be one where the sign could be seen from the limit line, but you still might argue that a driver who would have seen it while approaching the intersection could still miss it.