Jaywalking in Ohio

[fati]

Cleveland, Ohio.
I go to college near Cleveland Heights. 3 of my friends and I were walking back from a party, to where the university cab was to pick us up. It was one of those 5 degree nights....about 1:30 AM. (NO we had not been drinking!)
We crossed the street in the pedestrian lane, but truely don't recall if the crossing light was Walk or Don't Walk. Anyway, we were stopped by a police officer....he told us to just pay the fine, that he wouldn't be showing up. (the fine is $140.00). He then drove away, slowing down to shout at (what appeared to be) a homeless man, walking along the curb. The officer said "hey, you better get on the sidewalk because I have a back seat for jaywalkers". Then he drove away. I'm sure he figured the city wouldn't get anymoney from him. But, in the 10 minutes he stopped me and my friends, the city stands to make $560.00.
I pleaded not guilty and have a court date. Any chance of beating this, if the officer shows?

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by fati

Any chance of beating this?

On what basis, precisely, do you feel you have grounds to beat this?

[FlyingRon]

If he truly isn't going to show up, go to court and plead not guilty.
Even if he shows, you have little to lose other than your time.

[fati]

I was cited for violating ordinance 371.03. The ordinance only mentions crossing at a pedestrian cross walk....which I did. There was NO traffic.
the only point it mentions "official traffic control devices" is when referring to crossing an intersection diagonally.
I didn't cross diagonally.

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by fati

I was cited for violating ordinance 371.03. The ordinance only mentions crossing at a pedestrian cross walk....which I did. There was NO traffic.
the only point it mentions "official traffic control devices" is when referring to crossing an intersection diagonally.
I didn't cross diagonally.

I disagree:

(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all traffic upon the roadway.

(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

(d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.

(e) This section does not relieve the operator of a vehicle from exercising due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway.

(f) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, whoever violates this section is guilty of a minor misdemeanor. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to one predicate motor vehicle or traffic offense, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If, within one year of the offense, the offender previously has been convicted of two or more predicate motor vehicle or traffic offenses, whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree.

There is a semicolon separating the bolded part from the next. That is a new thought, and not a qualifier on the initial thought. It's saying, "You gotta pay attention to the traffic control devices. Oh, and if ya wanna go diagonal, then blah blah blah."

[outonbail]

Occultist, I don't see your point. The ordinance you have bold highlighted reads:

(d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic control devices;

The OP claims they did not cross the road diagonally.

So how would this apply?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by fati

I was cited for violating ordinance 371.03. The ordinance only mentions crossing at a pedestrian cross walk....which I did. There was NO traffic.
the only point it mentions "official traffic control devices" is when referring to crossing an intersection diagonally.
I didn't cross diagonally.

**A: ok, how did you cross then if not diagonally?

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by outonbail

Occultist, I don't see your point. The ordinance you have bold highlighted reads:

(d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic control devices;

The OP claims they did not cross the road diagonally.

So how would this apply?

Haha that's what I get for trying to post right after waking up

[The Occultist]

Well I'm not sure what to make of the statutes then. Reading through all of the statutes related to pedestrians, it doesn't seem to be required at all for pedestrians to wait for a "walk" signal as long as it doesn't place them in danger, which of course is a subjective term.

[HomeGuru]

I though Senior Member status had to do with age.

[fati]

The judge found me not guilty.
When the police officer stopped us, he kept talking about paying attention to the crossing lights....never mentioned the word "diagonally".
I was pretty sure we payed attention to the lights.....but couldn't be 100% sure.
When my mom actually pulled up the ordinance 371.03...which is what the ticket said I was being charged with violating, it does not refer to the lights...only crossing in a pedestrian cross walk and NOT crossing diagonally.
When I got to court, I was prepared to bring up the ordinance, because I KNEW we didn't cross diagonally.
I think the officer, when he knew he had to show up in court, looked at the ordinance he wrote down and realized he had to claim we were crossing diagonally. So, in his tesitmony, he kept emphasizing the word "diagonally"...which really made me mad! I insisted that we walked to the corners and crossed in the pedestrian walk.
When my 3 friends, whom I was with, went to court last week, they were found guilty because they, too were taken by surprise about the word diagonally and the prosecutor and officer insisted they must have crossed diagonally.... and they (although never admitted to it) must have made the judge believe that they must have.
The other thing that upsets me, is the judge said she "reluctantly" ruled not guilty, because she heard the other three cases and they were different from mine...."so someone is lying. and perjury is much more serious than jaywalking". It left me very uncomfortable...thinking they would try to come after me for perjury. But, I didn't. If anyone committed perjury it was the officer.

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by fati

The judge found me not guilty.
When the police officer stopped us, he kept talking about paying attention to the crossing lights....never mentioned the word "diagonally".
I was pretty sure we payed attention to the lights.....but couldn't be 100% sure.
When my mom actually pulled up the ordinance 371.03...which is what the ticket said I was being charged with violating, it does not refer to the lights...only crossing in a pedestrian cross walk and NOT crossing diagonally.
When I got to court, I was prepared to bring up the ordinance, because I KNEW we didn't cross diagonally.
I think the officer, when he knew he had to show up in court, looked at the ordinance he wrote down and realized he had to claim we were crossing diagonally. So, in his tesitmony, he kept emphasizing the word "diagonally"...which really made me mad! I insisted that we walked to the corners and crossed in the pedestrian walk.
When my 3 friends, whom I was with, went to court last week, they were found guilty because they, too were taken by surprise about the word diagonally and the prosecutor and officer insisted they must have crossed diagonally.... and they (although never admitted to it) must have made the judge believe that they must have.
The other thing that upsets me, is the judge said she "reluctantly" ruled not guilty, because she heard the other three cases and they were different from mine...."so someone is lying. and perjury is much more serious than jaywalking". It left me very uncomfortable...thinking they would try to come after me for perjury. But, I didn't. If anyone committed perjury it was the officer.

**A: how could you have your court hearing so fast?

[ReformedMan]

If you think about it... any straight line can be construed to be a diagonal if taken from a different perspective...

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by ReformedMan

If you think about it... any straight line can be construed to be a diagonal if taken from a different perspective...

**A: correct, and I learned that in geometry class.

[ReformedMan]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: correct, and I learned that in geometry class.

Fortunately a few of us paid attention in geometry class.