Quote Quoting flyingron
View Post
Nothing in the MUTCD could possibly kill the citation. The MUTCD isn't binding. Anyhow, the closest thing you'll find is

Placement of a traffic control device should be within the road user’s view so that adequate visibility is
provided. To aid in conveying the proper meaning, the traffic control device should be appropriately positioned
with respect to the location, object, or situation to which it applies. The location and legibility of the traffic
control device should be such that a road user has adequate time to make the proper response in both day and
night conditions.

Note that the "should" here in standards speak isn't binding, so even if MUTCD was binding, it wouldn't be an absolute requirement.
Further, while it's hard to tell with the limited picture provided, it would appear that if you actually STOPPED at the limit line the turn restriction would be perfectly legible and since you were stopped anyhow, it would be no problem with having "adequate time" to make the proper response.

Donzoh will be by with non-specific roll-the-dice technicalities.
I'm not sure what you mean by "non-specific roll-the-dice technicalities." I think my suggestions have been pretty specific, but I also understand that other defendants aren't going to get as far into the weeds as I have in defending traffic infractions. In that case, I have offered other suggestions that are less involved. On the question of rolling the dice, I've having trouble understanding what all the concern around here is regarding the "risk" posed by TBD. The fact is that if a defendant doesn't like the TBD result, they can go back into court at Trial de Novo, which is the same place most defendants go at the beginning because they don't know what they're doing. My approach requires the prosecution to prove its case twice, and even after that, a respectful, prepared, well-dressed defendant is frequently allowed Traffic School upon conviction.

In the above case, I agree with you that the MUTCD will not be binding but the photo provided by the OP might be persuasive in their defense. A fair-minded judge is might well understand that the driver would not reasonably see such a sign and therefore have no awareness of the turn prohibition. Furthermore, if the deputy adds words to his TBD like "clearly indicating" to his TBD response (assuming he does respond), a photo like the one shown here might seriously call into question his credibility.