Fail to Stop Emerging from Driveway

I live in Richmond, VA. Got the ticket for not stopping completely at the stop sign on the exit from shopping center parking lot.
Well, may be I did not stop completely, and usually I do, but at that time I overlooked that sign since it was dark, I was turning right and the sign never got into my lights (I was so surprised that I went back and checked it).
And I would not be making big deal out of it but what I really don't like is the fact that the policeman was hiding behind the bush with his lights off at that parking lot watching drivers running that sign and ticketing them as they do. He returned at the same spot and turned his lights off after hi ticketed me. About 9 pm, quite place, no traffic...
I have clean record, I was polite and apologized and told him that I did not see the sign, pointed to absence of traffic etc., asked for a brake, but that kid in uniform was really enjoying the process and that upsets me the most.
I've seen him at the same spot 2 more times in the next 10 days, which makes me think that this policeman has nothing better to do.
Ok, that was why I'd like to fight it.

Now I have some questions I hope somebody can help me with:
Will anything from the following facts help me?

1. The sign is on private property (as I understand).
2. The policeman was sitting behind the bush on parking lot (private property) with his lights off.
3. He cited me § 46.2-821. Vehicles before entering certain highways shall stop or yield right-of-way :
The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection on a highway controlled by a stop sign shall, immediately before entering such intersection, stop at a clearly marked stop line...
And in my case it should be:
§ 46.2-826. Stop before entering public highway or sidewalk from private road, etc.; yielding right-of-way.
since I was entering from private driveway.
4. He did not spell my name right and put wrong year of the car on the ticket.
5. It was dark (around 9pm) and when you exit the lot, at first you don't see the sign behind some bushes. To exit you need to drive around of that bush and the sign behind it so it never gets into you lights and there is no light around. I’m going to take pictures.

Thanks a lot.What is the name of your state?

You are correct in that § 46.2-821 does not apply for a driveway entering a highway and thus this citation should be dismissed as being in error that is if the LEO shows up which sometimes they do not...

You could also say how sorry you are and beg the state for non-moving or probation on the real charge.

cepe10 said:

You are correct in that § 46.2-821 does not apply for a driveway entering a highway and thus this citation should be dismissed as being in error that is if the LEO shows up which sometimes they do not...

You could also say how sorry you are and beg the state for non-moving or probation on the real charge.

Click to expand...

Cepe - you really need to get your act together. OP violated the section he was cited with.

Zigner said:

OP violated the section he was cited with.

Click to expand...

The citation is correct ???
Another question I forgotten to ask: If the citation is wrong can I plead Not Guilty (as I'm not guilty in that particular violation)?

underwood said:

The citation is correct ???
Another question I forgotten to ask: If the citation is wrong can I plead Not Guilty (as I'm not guilty in that particular violation)?

Click to expand...

You ran the stop sign...what makes you think it's not correct?

Zigner said:

You ran the stop sign...what makes you think it's not correct?

Click to expand...

Beware of advice from this poster for the following reason:

§ 3105. Drivers of emergency vehicles.

(c) Audible and visual signals required.--The privileges granted in this section to an
emergency vehicle shall apply only when the vehicle is making use of an audible signal and visual
signals meeting the requirements and standards set forth in regulations adopted by the department.

Instead of the definition in the vehicle code of department namely "the department of transportation", this guy thinks this means the individual police departments. LMAO

so you can tell what type of "advice" this LEO apologist is going to give you...

The cited violation is not correct - he is trying to bluff you. You have done your homework correctly -the first thing to look for is if the code cited is correct for what you are accused of. which in this case it obviously is not.

cepe10 said:

Beware of advice from this poster for the following reason:

§ 3105. Drivers of emergency vehicles.

(c) Audible and visual signals required.--The privileges granted in this section to an
emergency vehicle shall apply only when the vehicle is making use of an audible signal and visual
signals meeting the requirements and standards set forth in regulations adopted by the department.

Instead of the definition in the vehicle code of department namely "the department of transportation", this guy thinks this means the individual police departments. LMAO

so you can tell what type of "advice" this LEO apologist is going to give you...

The cited violation is not correct - he is trying to bluff you. You have done your homework correctly -the first thing to look for is if the code cited is correct for what you are accused of. which in this case it obviously is not.

Click to expand...

However, Cepe still can't cite the standards and regulations put forth by any department in that totally unrelated thread.
Ok, here's the deal. You were on a HIGHWAY and you ran a stop sign.
As for Cepe - he has a history of trying to convince anyone who will listen that all police officers are corrupt. Granted, there are cases where a police officer makes a mistake, but yours doesn't appear to be one of those cases.

Zigner said:

However, Cepe still can't cite the standards and regulations put forth by any department in that totally unrelated thread.
Ok, here's the deal. You were on a HIGHWAY and you ran a stop sign.
As for Cepe - he has a history of trying to convince anyone who will listen that all police officers are corrupt. Granted, there are cases where a police officer makes a mistake, but yours doesn't appear to be one of those cases.

Click to expand...

LOL you need to learn to read yourself....

§ 4571. Visual and audible signals on emergency vehicles.
(a) General rule.--Every emergency vehicle shall be equipped with one or more revolving or
flashing red lights and an audible warning system.

Underwood you are correct in that you were entering the public road from a parking lot, not approaching a sign controlled intersection of a highway...the cited statute is in error.

Zigner said:

You were on a HIGHWAY and you ran a stop sign.

Click to expand...

Zigner, I was on private driveway trying to enter public road, not on HIGHWAY approaching Stop sign. I cannot understand you point. Why would they have 2 different definitions in the chapter if it were the same violations?

But from the Law point of view... can I plead "Not Guilty" as I never violated the cited law?
Or should I say "guilty with explanations" and show my pictures and beg for some forgiveness as the wrong citation is nothing?
Cepe, thanks for your replies, but I did not get this one: "...this citation should be dismissed as being in error that is if the LEO shows up which sometimes they do not..."
Do you mean that if the policeman will show up he can change the citation right there?
That how it works? I just don't have much experience in that...

cepe10 said:

LOL you need to learn to read yourself....

§ 4571. Visual and audible signals on emergency vehicles.
(a) General rule.--Every emergency vehicle shall be equipped with one or more revolving or
flashing red lights and an audible warning system.

Underwood you are correct in that you were entering the public road from a parking lot, not approaching a sign controlled intersection of a highway...the cited statute is in error.

Click to expand...

And, in order to wrap up your hajacking of this thread...please explain how that helps the OP in the thread this belongs in. You can't, because it doesn't. Rather, it is just another attempt to discredit the police officers.

PS: I'm done arguing this with you. Just keep on giving poor advice - your bias shines through.

The key issue here will be the definition of the shopping centers paved roadway. If it is a "highway" pursuant to 46.2-100 then the section is appropriate. if not, then the section is likely bad. In my state we cannot generally cite stop sign violations from private property so such a cite would have been the wrong section. However, VA may well define these shopping centers differently or may have some means by which they can enforce vehicle rules on the proiperty (by MOU, perhaps?). Note the underlined portion below.

From 46.2-100:

"Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel in the Commonwealth, including the streets and alleys, and, for law-enforcement purposes, (i) the entire width between the boundary lines of all private roads or private streets that have been specifically designated "highways" by an ordinance adopted by the governing body of the county, city, or town in which such private roads or streets are located and (ii) the entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place used for purposes of vehicular travel on any property owned, leased, or controlled by the United States government and located in the Commonwealth.

And, the relevant portion of 46.2-821:

The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection on a highway controlled by a stop sign shall, immediately before entering such intersection, stop at a clearly marked stop line, or, in the absence of a stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, in the absence of a marked crosswalk, stop at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway. Before proceeding, he shall yield the right-of-way to the driver of any vehicle approaching on such other highway from either direction.

Finally, the relevant portion of 46.2-826:

The driver of a vehicle entering a public highway or sidewalk from a private road, driveway, alley, or building shall stop immediately before entering such highway or sidewalk and yield the right-of-way to vehicles approaching on such public highway and to pedestrians or vehicles approaching on such public sidewalk.

- Carl

underwood said:

And I would not be making big deal out of it but what I really don't like is the fact that the policeman was hiding behind the bush with his lights off at that parking lot watching drivers running that sign and ticketing them as they do.

Click to expand...

Maybe he or his bosses (or the complaining citizenry) does not like people pulling out in front of traffic. Nobody likes it when they get caught.

I've seen him at the same spot 2 more times in the next 10 days, which makes me think that this policeman has nothing better to do.
Ok, that was why I'd like to fight it.

Click to expand...

It may also be what he has been told to do. Besides, do you have any idea how many wanted criminals we find in traffic stops? It is actually a very effective method of policing.

Besides, fighting it is no real skin off his nose ... he probably gets between two and four hours of overtime just to come in to court for a few minutes.

Now I have some questions I hope somebody can help me with:
Will anything from the following facts help me?

1. The sign is on private property (as I understand).

Click to expand...

Possibly. See my previous post.

2. The policeman was sitting behind the bush on parking lot (private property) with his lights off.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

3. He cited me § 46.2-821. Vehicles before entering certain highways shall stop or yield right-of-way

Click to expand...

See my previous post.

4. He did not spell my name right and put wrong year of the car on the ticket.

Click to expand...

Not likely an issue. if the plate was correct and your license number and other identifying info was otherwise correct, that clerical error is not likely to be relevant.

5. It was dark (around 9pm) and when you exit the lot, at first you don't see the sign behind some bushes. To exit you need to drive around of that bush and the sign behind it so it never gets into you lights and there is no light around. I’m going to take pictures.

Click to expand...

Possibly a defense if the sign is obscured.

Personally, I think he cited you for the wrong section. But, the shopping center might be covered under a local ordinance making it a "highway" where the traffic laws can be enforced.

- Carl

Thanks a lot, Carl, but I think there should be some common sense in any job. Very quite place, I doubt anybody requested police help there... but well, who knows... And then nobody promised that everything in the life will be fair.
How can I find out about that Code section (or highway definition)?
And if the section is still wrong is it relevant to how can I plead or I'm just looking for more trouble? Does it worth it?
The main thing for me right now is to decide if I can plead "not guilty" or should I concentrate more on my explanation (with pictures). It's really almost invisible in the dark.

underwood said:

How can I find out about that Code section (or highway definition)?

Click to expand...

I suspect that you can check with the city hall or the planning department to see if the shopping center is covered by ordinance. Since this is not an issue in my state, I don't have an easy go-to answer for you on how to find out. However, I'd check in person rather than by phone. It's easier to get brushed off on the phone.

And if the section is still wrong is it relevant to how can I plead or I'm just looking for more trouble? Does it worth it?

Click to expand...

Well, it really depends on the process in your court. The court might allow the officer to amend the citation on the fly. Or, when it comes to your time to make the defense case you can present the definitions, photos of the site, a statement or other "proof" to show that the shopping center is not a "highway" and thus the stop sign was not relevant. You could further explain that you did not make an unasfe entry into traffic from the driveway.

However! Keep in mind that you could be admitting to violating 46.2-826 as the section does say you have to "STOP" immediately before entering the highway. Depending on the rules in your court, the judge could find you not guilty of the 821 section only to find you guilty of 826 if you admit to not stopping before entry into traffic. Whether your court rules allow for this sort of thing, I can only speculate. I am guessing they cannot, but you never know ... traffic court can be an odd place sometimes.

You might consider hedging your bets and trying for traffic school.

- Carl

Curt581 said:

It's no surprise you don't 'get' what he says. Very little of what he is saying is actually relevant. He's even cited emergency vehicles being required to have emergency lighting.... Which is absolutely IRRELEVANT to your questions. It's an argument that spilled over from AN ENTIRELY UNRELATED THREAD.

Click to expand...

I think it is relevant that neither you or zigner know the statutes....can't ever back up what you are saying, and neither of you can simply admit when you are clearly wrong. One can only hope you two don't kill anyone while your running red lights without any visual or auditory signals.

I can tell you from working on site palns in the area that the stop sign for this development for a entrance to a highway from a private parking lot has no basis in law by the statute cited - it is only a friendly reminder the developer and his engineer put on the site plans - this is quite common. Regardless, the officer cited the wrong code section as Carl has pointed out as well. I can also agree with Carl that what could hapopen with that is up in the air - for numerous reasons it could certainly work in your favor though.

I meant the witness (officer) actually showing up for the trial - it does happen often enough that they can't make the date or before the trial he may make an offer to avoid trying the incorrect charge after others he targeted have possible argued the same thing ahead of you.