Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
This happened today in San Diego, CA. Here is the intersection: https://goo.gl/maps/FgKHyVVxQ2E2 (the satellite view is out of date; the construction is finished now and can be seen in Google Street View).
I had left the shopping center southwest of the intersection and was traveling north on Paseo Del Sur. I stopped at the intersection with Camino Del Sur and observed that cars were making left-hand turns from westbound Camino Del Sur onto southbound Paseo Del Sur. There was one car on Paseo Del Sur in front of me, and it made a right turn. I pulled forward and stopped at the intersection. Vehicles were still making left turns, and none were making U-turns, so I made a right turn. About 50 yards ahead of me on Camino Del Sur was a police car, parked on the side of the road, with its flashers on. As I passed the police car, I saw another vehicle parked in front of it, as if the officer had made a traffic stop. In my rear-view mirror, I saw the police car merge into traffic. His flashers remained on as he followed me eastbound. He turned on his sirens briefly between Lone Quail Rd. and Dove Canyon Rd., and I pulled over immediately.
The (polite and respectful) SDPD officer issued a citation for CVC 21461(a), Violation of Signs:
21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.
Apparently I violated "No Right Turn on Red" signs. At the time I didn't see them, but they've visible on Google Street View: There is one on Paseo Del Sur maybe 15 ft before the intersection, as well as one about 100 ft away across the intersection (over the road sign for Camino Del Sur). The officer told me that they've had numerous accidents with people turning right on red, which is why he's enforcing the sign today.
I can think of three defenses (which I believe can be used in tandem):
- The officer could not have observed me violating the law. I did not observe him out of his vehicle. Since he was in his vehicle the whole time, he would have been facing forward (eastbound). If he was looking behind himself at all, his view was too obstructed to clearly observe me.
- The officer was not paying enough attention to turn off his flashers. It is reasonable to believe he was not paying enough attention to observe me.
- The signs are not clearly visible. The sign before the intersection is too far back, while the sign across the intersection is too small.
Do I have any hope of prevailing with these arguments, or would it be a waste of time? I suspect that if I do go to trial, the officer will be there (since this enforcement was planned).
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
Obviously the officer saw you make the unlawful turn, as he stopped you and gave you a ticket for your unlawful turn. You are not going to convince the court that the officer did not see you make the turn. It's irrelevant that he did not turn his flashers off before pulling onto the road, then turn them back on to pull you over, and his keeping his flashers on does not in any way suggest inattention.
If you want to make an argument that you could not reasonably observe the signs that prohibit a right turn at that intersection, you can try to convince the court that they were not reasonably observable and do not comply with the MUTCD (I suspect that they are compliant). However, what you are making a case for with that argument is your own inattention, not the officer's -- and as you note, in the street view of the intersection there are two unobstructed "no right turn on red" signs present at the intersection, one on either side of the intersection. The sign immediately before the intersection is not "too far back" -- if you observe it, you're not going to forget about it in the split second it takes to pass from the point of the sign to the intersection.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
Quote:
Quoting
SD_Driver
The signs are not clearly visible. The sign before the intersection is too far back
Seriously?
It's at the hydrant within a car length of the crosswalk.
Quote:
Quoting
SD_Driver
Do I have any hope of prevailing with these arguments,
Not a prayer.
Take traffic school if you are eligible and avoid insurance surcharges.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
The one on the pole bearing the signal itself is pretty much where MUTCD says is should be. "If used, the no Turn on Red sign should be installed near the appropriate signal head."
Arguing it isn't clear isn't going to work.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
The officer sure was paying attention if he stopped you for making a right on red and cited you for 21461. They install three mirrors on all patrol cars that allow the driver to look behind while seated, facing forward.
Take photos, take them in and make your argument. You should try to say it was confusing to you since its a solid red light and not a red arrow. People normally make right turns on red on solid red lights. You can try to say the intersection is new and you were confused or not used to it.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
Okay, that's what I expected. Thanks for your help, everyone.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
I don't buy sniper's argument. WHat's confusing. NO RIGHT ON RED signs exist all the time at intersetions with only RED BALLS.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
That's a better argument than assuming someone wasn't looking at their direction when they committed the infraction.
Think of it though, everyone is taught to turn right on a solid red (after stopping behind the limit line and waiting for a clear spot). People are conditioned to do this after years of driving. Now, if the city was serious about no turn on red they would install a 4 light signal on the upright, one solid red, and one right facing red arrow (you can never turn right on a red arrow). They could also have a larger sign on the upright (but not needed). The argument of "it's a new intersection and I didn't realize the signs were there" could be effective in persuading the judge to reduce the fine, suspend the fine, or render a finding of not guilty (even though the op is).
It's a far better argument than assuming what someone was looking at.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
I have no idea what you are going on about. It's a lame argument. People are trained that there may be NO TURN ON RED signs. In fact, in California it's right in the statute that gives you the exception to having to stop on the RED that:
1. There is no sign to the contrary.
2. You make a full stop.
3. There is no conflicting traffic.
In fact, it is right there in the California driving handbook.
Aguing that everybody else does things unsafe and illegal doesn't work.
Re: Can You Beat a Ticket By Claiming that the Officer Didn't Observe You
Sure, it's a lame argument. But it's some kind of argument. I broke the law; to win in court I need an argument better than "I'm a great guy, and great guys deserve to get let off." The best I could think of was that the officer could not have gotten a clear look at me, but it's a terrible argument: His whole job that day was to look at people turning right on red. The argument only works if I can show he was distracted by his previous ticket. I have no evidence of that, so all he has to do is say he wasn't. (And he probably wasn't, because why else would he have pulled me over?)
sniper's idea is better. Instead of trying to beat the ticket outright, it's an appeal to sympathy. The judge is probably not there because he likes screwing people (though a few are), and he'll surely have made a traffic violation of his own at some point in his life. Saying that it was an honest mistake (which it was) and documenting why I made that mistake is my best hope of getting a reduced sentence.