Timing of Pedestrians Leaving Sidewalk

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

California, Santa Monica

I was making a left turn into a small street (going South making a left East) and did see two pedestrians on my left on a curb of a sidewalk preparing to cross small street North. Considering that I was on a main street and would have blocked the traffic and that pedestrians were still on a sidewalk I have decided to turn. The pedestrians did step down to the small street and started crossing after I have already began the turn and was on the opposing traffic side of the street. Considering that pedestrians were 6-7 feet away from my car, I did not stop and finished the turn. I have received a ticket 21950 (a) vc. Is it possible that the police officer did not notice when the pedestrians stepped down to the street before or after I have started to turn? Does the timing of pedestrians begining to cross the street in this instance make a difference? As an aggravating factor I was texting on my blackberry and was sited for that as well, although I was paying full attention to the traffic.

Thank you

I think this is self explanatory:

Quote:

---

21950(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a
marked or unmarked crosswalk.

---

By the way... what are the details about your blackberry charge? What section were you cited with? Did you admit anything?

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

I think this is self explanatory:



By the way... what are the details about your blackberry charge? What section were you cited with? Did you admit anything?

---

23123.5 (a) vc - I don't recall exactly what I said to the officer but I think he saw a blackberry in my hand and he assumed I was texting. I was actually typing in a name into my search option to find an email with a phone number for a doctor. I remember asking him whether or not typing into a phone is illegal and he said yes but that is not what he is charging me with.

Would it be possible to explain why my question is self-explanatory? Is it evident that I broke the law? As far as I was concerned at the time I was considered of the traffic and pedestrians and managed to avoid inconvenience for everyone. Beginning to make a turn while the pedestrians are still on the sidewalk is not illegal. Continuing with the turn and not blocking the traffic or getting in the way of pedestrians was a safe decision in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Quoting GAT

---

As an aggravating factor I was texting on my blackberry

---

Versus:

Quote:

---

Quoting GAT

---

I was actually typing in a name into my search option to find an email with a phone number for a doctor.

---

So were you texting or were you looking for a phone number? Don't answer that... (Your posts here aren't going to be entered as testimony in court).

I am not by any means suggesting guilt or otherwise. The only point I am trying to make is that to the officer, it may have seemed that you were texting... And since texting while driving is against the law, he opted to cite you for the alleged infraction (based on what he saw) and you have your right to attempt to refute his testimony by making whatever argument you feel will work for you in court.

As for the 21950(a) violation, CVC section 21950(b) may apply here in that your version of events suggests that the pedestrians stepped off the sidewalk onto the crosswalk AFTER you began your turn. And if that is what the officer will testify to then you certainly do have a valid argument that the failure to yield violation should not have been issued to begin with. You should cite the CVC section EWYLTJ posted (above) and move for a dismissal.

Once again, this is pretty easy:

Quote:

---

23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using
an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read
a text-based communication.
(b) As used in this section "write, send, or read a text-based
communication" means using an electronic wireless communications
device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based
communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred
to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

---

You were NOT communicating with any person, you were googling something. The statue is clearly not applicable in that situation. Therefore, you are not guilty. Additionally, it is the burden of the prosecution to PROVE that you were manually communicating with another person. Given the function of phones today, simply holding a phone in your hand and pushing buttons doesn't come close to meeting that burden.

Quote:

---

Quoting That Guy

---

Versus:



So were you texting or were you looking for a phone number? Don't answer that... (Your posts here aren't going to be entered as testimony in court).

I am not by any means suggesting guilt or otherwise. The only point I am trying to make is that to the officer, it may have seemed that you were texting... And since texting while driving is against the law, he opted to cite you for the alleged infraction (based on what he saw) and you have your right to attempt to refute his testimony by making whatever argument you feel will work for you in court.

As for the 21950(a) violation, CVC section 21950(b) may apply here in that your version of events suggests that the pedestrians stepped off the sidewalk onto the crosswalk AFTER you began your turn. And if that is what the officer will testify to then you certainly do have a valid argument that the failure to yield violation should not have been issued to begin with. You should cite the CVC section EWYLTJ posted (above) and move for a dismissal.

---

So, the trial is a way to go? What if Judge agrees with the ticket. What are the chances to win on appeal or at least get a traffic schiool? Are there other options? Thank you.

Appeals are normally where you have to go to get someone to actually apply the law. Typically, traffic court judges just assume you are guilty when you walk in the court and they don't really listen to you since you are not a lawyer. But, you have to make your argument and make appropriate objections to preserve your case for appeal.

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Once again, this is pretty easy:



You were NOT communicating with any person, you were googling something. The statue is clearly not applicable in that situation. Therefore, you are not guilty. Additionally, it is the burden of the prosecution to PROVE that you were manually communicating with another person. Given the function of phones today, simply holding a phone in your hand and pushing buttons doesn't come close to meeting that burden.

---

Would you consider the results of a google search text based communication?

Quote:

---

Quoting EWYLTJ

---

Appeals are normally where you have to go to get someone to actually apply the law. Typically, traffic court judges just assume you are guilty when you walk in the court and they don't really listen to you since you are not a lawyer. But, you have to make your argument and make appropriate objections to preserve your case for appeal.

---

Would trial by declation be a good idea? If the Judge will agree with the officer at lease I have disagreed and did not admit the fault. Would a traffic school be possible after the declaration? By the way is texting a point violation? Does it mean I can be hit by 2 points?

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Would you consider the results of a google search text based communication?

---

No. Nor would I consider it communication with ANY PERSON!!! That's what the standard is set in the statute.

Quote:

---

Quoting GAT

---

Would trial by declation be a good idea? If the Judge will agree with the officer at lease I have disagreed and did not admit the fault. Would a traffic school be possible after the declaration? By the way is texting a point violation? Does it mean I can be hit by 2 points?

---

A TBWD would be good just so you can get a copy of the officer's notes when you lose (and you will lose). I would not write anything other than "I am not guilty".