How to Contest a Stop Sign Violation, VC 22450(A)

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

I received my first traffic ticket for failing to stop at a stop sign by where I work. Here's some background info to the location:

- I was on major street heading west.
- There is a center island dividing the two-way traffic.
- Each one-way traffic has 3 lanes.
- To cross over to the other side or enter a property on the other side of the street, you need to turn into an opening and wait at the stop sign before it is safe to proceed.
- I've attached a drawing as it may be a bit confusing. The drawing is not to scale though.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui...&sz=w1342-h547

I was at the stop sign intersection right in front of my workplace. Passing the stop sign would lead me directly into the driveway of where I worked. That morning, as I made a left turn into this intersection, I saw that there weren't any oncoming cars. As I (indicated by the dot) came to a quick stop at the stop sign, I saw a motorcyclist (the X) in the first lane closest to me. In addition to being in the closest lane to me, he was also a safe distance away, so I felt it was safe to go ahead and cross the three lanes into the driveway. Unfortunately, I later learned that motorcyclist was a police officer.

I was very flustered when he pulled me over. To be honest, I was quite intimidated and didn't know what to say. He ultimately issued me a ticket for failing to stop although I do believe I did make a stop albeit brief.

I did some research online and am thinking about fighting my ticket with a trial by declaration. This is my first ticket, so I'm unsure what's the best approach to frame my argument. I tried looking for some examples online, but I guess since there are so many different variations of stop sign violations, I couldn't really find one that pertained to my situation. If anyone has some advice, I'd greatly appreciate it!

The officer had a pretty good vantage point, so I can't really argue he didn't see me well enough. I tried looking up MUTCD guidelines, but I don't think any of that was violated. I'm thinking I can argue that I did stop and saw that he was far enough away from me, so it was safe for me to cross. However, I don't know what's considered a "safe distance" according to the law? The speed limit for that street is 40 mph. Do you think this is the best way to frame my argument or it's a bit beside the point?

My court date is 12/12/14, so I am hoping to turn in my TBD before Thanksgiving and crossing my fingers that perhaps the holiday season will be too busy for the police officer to want to respond.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read this! I appreciate anyone's help/advice!

Not being there I can only offer this - most people think they've stopped when the haven't.

Drivers hit the brakes, feel the car lurch forward and honestly believe the have come to a stop. However, unless you also feel the car lurch backwards, you've only slowed down or made what's known as a Hollywood Stop or California Stop.

There's an intersection down the street from me that the local police sit at periodically. Within a couple hours they will write around a dozen stop sign citations to drivers who do just what I've described. Most believe that they have stopped, but in reality they just slowed.

TBD is probably a good idea. If you lose there, you can go back into court for a regular trial anyway. L-1 is correct that many people think they have stopped when they have not. It's likely the court will believe the officer if there is a discrepancy between what you say and what they say.

The officer may or may not respond but it might not have much to do with the season of the year. Your due date is not the date by which the TR205 form must be submitted but rather the date by which you must request TBD with the court clerk. After you make the request, the clerk is to reset your days 25 days out which becomes the due date for the TR205 and bail submission.

Thank you both for your responses!

donzoh1, do you have any suggestions for how to frame my defense for the TBD? That is what I am struggling with now. Currently, I can only think of mentioning that I stopped before the limit line and reference the definition of VC22450(a). I am also thinking about indicating that I stopped long enough to see that the officer was far enough away from me to cross safely. However, I'm having trouble finding the definition of a "safe distance" in order to use it in my TBD.

Before you proceed with a trial by written declaration let me make a suggestion.

Make a copy of your ticket. Mail it to the law enforcement agency that issued the citation in an envelope marked “Attention Custodian of Records.”

Attach a letter to your citation copy stating you are requesting “Informal Discovery.” Ask for:

1. A copy of the front and back side of the officer’s copy of the citation issued in the matter, including any notes made by the officer pertaining to this incident.

2. A copy of any reports, records or other notes prepared by the officer in connection with this matter.

3. A copy of any patrol vehicle audio and video recordings made in connection with this matter.

4. A copy of any audio and video recordings made by the officer’s personal recording devices in connection with this matter.


Depending on his assignment, an officer may issue as many as 120 citations per month. In order to remember who did what if a citation goes to court, they usually write notes on the back of each citation immediately after it is written, or they write a separate report. Items 1 & 2 will give you an idea as to what the officer is prepared to testify to if your contest the citation. This will help you shape your defense.

Patrol car videos are usually not running until after the red and blue lights are turned on, so it is unlikely your violation was caught on camera, however, knowing what was recorded is important for another reason. When stopped, drivers tend to say things that go against their interest. Often they apologize and admit the violation. Once in a while they get rude and belligerent. If they admit the violation when stopped but swear their innocence to the heavens in court, the officer whips out the recording and plays it, impeaching their credibility. Similarly, belligerent drivers usually try to attribute inappropriate statements or conduct to the officer in court. When that occurs the officer again presents the audio and video recording exonerating himself and showing the driver acting like an idiot. When these things happen, any benefit of doubt the judge might have given the driver goes out the window.

Temper you defense against what you said on any recordings that were made of your contact during this event.

As a side note, stopping before the limit line, safe distance and crossing safely are not defenses to the violation. CVC 22450 reads:

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.

You need to have stopped AT the limit line.

Best of luck

Thank you L-1 for all your suggestions! Thanks also for pointing out "AT" the limit line. That is what I meant to say. I better be careful with my use of words in my TBD!

In regards to the discussion of a "safe distance," I was thinking that it might be beside the point to mention that. However, I want to show the Court that I did indeed stop because I had to have stopped long enough in order to judge the distance of the officer before crossing the intersection. In my TBD, I am writing the details of how I knew how far the officer was. If I hadn't stopped, I wouldn't have known these details. But, would you say this offense probably won't be dismissed unless the officer doesn't respond?

I'm just not able to prove that the officer had a poor vantage point because he didn't. There were no trees/bushes and no other cars in the way. I don't know how else to prove that I did stop at the limit line if the officer had a clear view. For this reason, I guess I am just betting on the officer not responding. :/

I actually just finished writing a draft of my TBD. Would someone mind reading it to give me any type of feedback (what to change, add, eliminate, etc.)? I would greatly appreciate your time and help! Thank you!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To whom it may concern,

I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 22450(a).

The facts of my case are as follows: While driving west on ABC Blvd., in Los Angeles, CA on 10-09-2014 at approximately 8:00 AM on my way to work at ABC Elementary School, I was stopped by Los Angeles PD Officer (ID #) at the multi-lane divider intersection of ABC Blvd. and the driveway of ABC School and the Church and was charged with violating CVC 22450(a). The Officer has alleged that I failed to stop. I believe that I was driving safely and complied with CVC 22450(a) and did in fact make a complete stop in compliance with the aforementioned law.

CVC 22450 (a) states that: “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.”

At the time of my stop, the road was dry and clear with very light traffic. When I stopped at the limit line, I prepared to yield to the right-of-way of any vehicles in the three lanes ahead of me. There were no other cars near my immediate position except for a motorcyclist who was in the near side of the intersection and a safe distance away. For this reason, I proceeded to safely cross the three lanes into the driveway. After I crossed and was driving in the driveway, I saw that the motorcyclist was a police officer and was then charged for violating CVC 22450(a).

The Officer asked why I did not stop. I responded that I stopped and did not see any cars. I also mentioned I did see him (the motorcyclist), but he was a safe distance away from me to cross. According to the California handbook from the Department of Motor Vehicles, it states that vehicles “far enough away generally appear(s) to be standing still.” I did in fact make a complete stop because I was able to judge that he was not moving closer to me. Knowing that vehicles appear to move slower than they really are moving, I came to a stop long enough to observe that the motorcyclist appeared to be standing still. In addition, when I stopped, I saw that the motorcyclist was half a block away (approximately 500 feet) from me. The California Department of Motor Vehicles handbook states that a gap of about half a block on city streets is needed to cross city traffic from a full stop. Furthermore, before proceeding from my stop, I also made sure there were no vehicles or people blocking the driveway I was about to enter before me. I stopped at the limit line long enough to have made all three aforementioned judgments.

I would request that the prosecution provide photographical or video evidence of my specific car failing to stop at the limit line to determine whether or not my vehicle in question had made a complete stop. If the prosecution does not attach proof with its written declaration to establish as part of its prima facie case that the citing officer had not seen my stop, I trust the Court dismiss my case pursuant to CVC 22450(a). I trust in the Court’s fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.

If the court does not decide in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Oy Vey

You have no idea how to defend yourself until you know what the evidence is against you. For that reason I strongly urge you to obtain informal discovery and read the officer’s notes or statement before you compose and submit your written declaration. Otherwise there is a strong potential for you to shoot yourself in the foot. Additionally, listen to any recording he made of the contact.

I would also point out that you do not get to define the rules of evidence. Your suggestion that the court dismiss if photographic proof of the violation is not produced is not only laughable but suggests you have been watching too many crime shows on TV. The officer is a trained professional who has nothing to gain from citing you. As such, the courts traditionally give greater weight to his testimony over yours. Absent significant evidence on your part, his testimony alone is usually enough for a conviction.

L-1 makes some very good suggestions here on the Informal Discovery Request. On balance, it's probably a good idea and I've done it several times. In one case, the officer had drawn a double yellow line on the back of his own citation copy where the road was marked with a dashed line. This was demonstrated with photos I took and the violation was dismissed at TBD. Depending on the officer's attitude, you might cause them to work even harder for a conviction than normal, but I still think IDR is worth it.

As you mentioned, you're new at this so let me say this as gently as possible: "Your TBD stinks!" You don't have any reason to demand a Not Guilty verdict based on a lack of photographic or video evidence. If such evidence exists (I don't even know whether motorcycles can record video) it may or may not be presented by the prosecution. If only testimonial evidence is presented, the officer will likely be believed, not you. A far better TBD in your case, not yet having seen the discovery evidence, would say "Please accept this as my plea of Not Guilty" and nothing else.

Also, I might suggest you delay things a bit. One of my friends was stopped for speeding in Chatsworth (LA County) and he delayed his case eventually for an entire year. At the end, he submitted a TBD and was acquitted. He admitted to me that he was guilty (did not admit this on TBD). I don't believe the officer responded at TBD but assuming this is correct, it could be that the delay was helpful. People forget things, lose things, change job assignments, move, retire, etc.

In the case I mentioned about the yellow line, I was factually innocent. My friend was not, but the verdicts in both cases was the same. This points out something important you should understand before going forward. Court is not about determining whether or not you ran a stop sign. It's determining whether the prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt while following the rules of evidence.

I agree with you, L-1 on obtaining informal discovery. That is what I was originally thinking. However, I've also heard from someone that obtaining discovery should only be elected for an in court trial as the officer will know that I plan on fighting the ticketing, allowing him more time to prepare for the TBD. That being said, I also recognize the benefits of having the information to help in writing my TBD.

If I obtain the IDR, I see 3 scenarios happening.

1. I receive all the notes, reports, records, audio/video recordings, and the evidence will not work in my favor. I do remember feeling very uneasy and intimidated by the officer since it was my first ticket and he kept pressuring me asking why I did not stop. I remember telling him I did stop, but he kept going back to this question of me stopping. Eventually, under the pressure, I said something along the lines of, "I guess I did a rolling stop, didn't I." The officer didn't respond to that statement. Looking back now, I realized it was a big mistake as that might've been recorded...

So, in this scenario, if all the evidence is used against me, would you recommend that I still continue with a TBD? I probably wouldn't have much of a defense. In addition, the officer will probably know I want to fight it and be prepared to send in his response to my TBD.

2. I receive all the requested materials, but there is no real proof for the officer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not stop. How would I frame my TBD then? Since the officer already knows I want to fight my ticket, even if he doesn't have proof (like what you mentioned) his testimony will still weigh heavier than mine, and I will probably still lose.

3. What if my request is ignored? What happens then?

I'm just wondering what is the best route for me to take at this point considering all the different scenarios?

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks donzoh1 for your honesty. I also thought my TBD wasn't very strong, but I didn't know what else to say.

I'm considering requesting IDR. But, in regards to what I mentioned about the 3 different scenarios, I don't quite know what would be most beneficial for me at this point.

I just extended my ticket to February 2015. Thanks for that suggestion!

Quote:

---

Quoting awsilks

---

I agree with you, L-1 on obtaining informal discovery. That is what I was originally thinking. However, I've also heard from someone that obtaining discovery should only be elected for an in court trial as the officer will know that I plan on fighting the ticketing, allowing him more time to prepare for the TBD. That being said, I also recognize the benefits of having the information to help in writing my TBD.

---

There’s not a lot to prepare for. All he can do is look at his notes and prepare a response based on them. It’s a basic simple report. He probably has a boilerplate response in his computer. All he has to do is change the date, time, vehicle description, license, driver identity, etc., and tweak a few words and it’s done.

Quote:

---

Quoting awsilks

---

I receive all the notes, reports, records, audio/video recordings, and the evidence will not work in my favor. I do remember feeling very uneasy and intimidated by the officer since it was my first ticket and he kept pressuring me asking why I did not stop. I remember telling him I did stop, but he kept going back to this question of me stopping. Eventually, under the pressure, I said something along the lines of, "I guess I did a rolling stop, didn't I." The officer didn't respond to that statement. Looking back now, I realized it was a big mistake as that might've been recorded.

---

That would kind of blow a hole in any claims of innocence you might make before the court. Traffic school would sound really good if that were the case.

Quote:

---

Quoting awsilks

---

I receive all the requested materials, but there is no real proof for the officer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did not stop.

---

The officer’s testimony is proof. If you wish to challenge the officer’s testimony you must make a tangible offer of proof that he personally is lacking in credibility. But, for you to claim his testimony is valueless merely because it comes from a police officer reeks of arrogance, makes you look like an idiot and insults the court. Again, he does this for a living, quotas are prohibited by California law and there is no motivation to intentionally hand out bogus citations. For that reason, the officer’s testimony alone is usually accepted as proof beyond a reasonable doubt absent credible evidence rebutting the matter.

Quote:

---

Quoting awsilks

---

What if my request is ignored? What happens then?

---

I will leave that for other, more qualified members of the forum to answer.