Failure to obey traffic control device

Hi,

I live in chandler, ARizona. I got a ticket for failure to obey traffic control device.

I was heading southbound and I wanted to take a U-turn. So I entered a left turn lane. But as soon as I entered the left turn lane, I saw a no u-turn sign. So instead of take a U-turn, I took a left turn and drove into entrance of a building which had tall gates approximately 1500 feet from the road. The driveway had a divider and then a decent space which seemed specifically for making U-turns. So I took a U-turn there, and then took a right turn to head north-bound. Unluckily the building behind the gate was a police station, and a cop's car was behind the gate. He slowly followed me and then stopped me. Gave me a ticket for failure to obey a traffic control device.

First he said that I made a U-turn in a no U-turn sign. When I told him that I made a left turn, then he said that well you might have blocked my car if I had an urgent call. I didnt hear any police siren.

Should I think about contesting it?

It was 150 feet distance and not 1500 feet distance.

He's probably citing you under this statute:

Quote:

---

Quoting Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 28-651. Use of private property to avoid traffic control device prohibited

---

A person shall not drive on or through any private property, road or driveway to avoid obedience to traffic rules or traffic control devices.

---

Police stations are not private property

Yet a driveway is a driveway, whether it leads to private property or a police station.

ouch :-)

Don't take it as an "ouch" - it's a good example of how two people can look at the same text and reasonably interpret it in two different maners. When the statute says "private property, road or driveway", does it mean "private property, private road or private driveway"? I'm not surprised that somebody would read it that way. It would have been much more clear had the legislature written "road, driveway or private property".

Aaron, I'm not sure what you mean. If "private" doesn't apply to "road" and "driveway", as well as "property", that statute doesn't make sense. If not, you could be given a ticket on any public "road" if that road or roads somehow allowed you to avoid a traffic control device.

We have a similar statute in WA. It's main purpose, though, is to stop people from cutting through gas stations, parking lots, etc. to avoid stop lights.

Dpk16 stated that he got a ticket for "failure to obey a traffic control device". I don't see that. Seems to me he did, indeed, obey the "no U-turn" sign and proceeded to a place where he could turn around. Unless there was a "no U-turn" sign in the driveway, I think it should be dismissed. But, then, I'm not the judge.

I'm not going to exclude the possibility that you are right, as I'm not personally aware of any case law interpreting the statute. But I think it makes less sense to permit the very type of conduct the state deems objectionable, on the basis that the driver avoids a traffic signal by driving on a public driveway or public road. What difference does that make - it's the conduct, after all, that is proscribed and which poses a potential danger to other drivers.

Further, basic rules of statutory construction applied in most states hold that you never interpret a statute such as to nullify its language. (Specifically in Arizona, "A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to avoid, if possible, and interpretation which render superfluous any portion of a statute." In re Maricopa County Superior Court 203 Ariz. 351, 354; 54 P.3d 380, 383 (2002).) If you say "private property", that necessarily includes private roads and private driveways. If you say "private property, road or driveway", and interpret that as simply meaning "private property", you are rendering the language "road or driveway" superfluous.

Hmmm. Good point. I guess that's why you're the lawyer, and I'm not. Although, in WA I seem to remember something pertaining to a qualifying antecedent (such as "private") and how it also modifies members of a succeeding list. It would take me quite a while to find that case, since my memory is from something I read about 18 years ago (and is, therefore, probably erroneous -- I've learned that, as you get older, you seem to remember only those things you want to remember, and only in the way you want to remember them -- LOL).

But, no matter. I see your point, though I still think the driver in this case complied with the traffic control device, and, instead, turned around in a nearby driveway (that did not contain a "no U-turn" sign).

There is an awful lot of case law focusing on the significance of a comma, or trying to figure out whether a term modified only the immediately subsenquent term, or an entire list. Litigating over that type of issue is a frustration and, frankly, wastes everybody's time and money. And at the end of the day, it would be entirely avoidable if legislators exercised a bit more care when drafting laws. Not all ambiguities or errors can be eliminated, but a great many can.

Amen!