Uh, the VC states "at the intersection" three times.... and elsewhere it defines "intersection" as:
VC365. An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongations of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
Nowhere does 22101 say 'before' the intersection.
Is there a legal basis for this?
You are allowed to change lanes- even if it is a solid line.
You cannot disobey a sign that says 'this lane MUST turn left'.
But moving OUT of the lane, prior to the intersection is (i think) permitted.
Now, this is all moot as the officer will likely lie, or at least never provide clear testimony as to where you left the lane...and the judge will agree with the officer.
The only argument you may make is that the officer was stopped and sitting AT the intersection, so you were, in actual fact unable to enter the intersection in the left turn lane. You moved from the left turn lane to the straight lane before the intersection as defined in 365. If this is a violation- and you dont think it is- you should have been cited, but you did NOT go straight in the left lane.
GL
A

