10.08.030 LBMC "Failure to obey posted sign"

[BubblyBrunette]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

I received a citation from an officer for failure to obey a posted sign using 10.08.030 LBMC.

I was traveling southbound on Lakewood Blvd. heading to the 405 S freeway in the far right lane and the lane turned into a rt. turn only lane so I merged into the next lane on my left. As I did this I noticed the police car sitting in the parking lot of the bldg. to my right and sure enough he pulled me over after the freeway and told me it would have been best to make the right turn then turn around.

I didn't argue as he told me that it wouldn't have a pt. counted against me or anything and was an infraction ticket.

I got the bail amount in the mail today and it's $435.00 which I think is very high and will be fighting this ticket. Had I gone through the intersection when it had a rt. turn only sign then I could understand but as soon as it changed I got out. The officer even told me that he knew it was going to bad for people when that sign was put up. Especially for those out of town.

Has anyone had any success in contesting this type of ticket? Also any advice on what I can site to contest this?

 

[HighwayMan]

Bubbly, what is LBMC? Long Beach Municipal Code, maybe?

 

[HighwayMan]

Nevermind, I found it. It is the Long Beach Municipal Code.

I took a quick look at it and it makes no mention of what violations of this code are - infractions, misdemeanors, etc. I guess this is one of those California things.

To you Californians, why would she have been written under a local code and not the California Vehicle Code? Alot of the sections for traffic offenses under LBMC seem like they would be duplicates of state statutes.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

LBMC 10.08.030 Obedience required.

Pedestrians and drivers of any vehicles shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto, placed in accordance with the traffic ordinances of this city, unless otherwise directed by a police officer.​

Pretty generic infraction... I think you can find out more about how to proceed if you were to request discovery of the officer's notes. Do a search for "Informal Discover request" and you'll get a few tips on how to proceed with that. In this case, however, and rather than requesting discovery from the Los Angeles County District Attorney as is the case normally, you will probably have to have it served on the Long Beach City Attorney since I think they would have jurisdiction over this infraction. Contact the court clerk for more information on addresses and local court procedures.

I took a quick look at it and it makes no mention of what violations of this code are - infractions, misdemeanors, etc. I guess this is one of those California things.

This is an infraction... It also differs from a California Vehicle Code infraction in that it is not reported to the California DMV. So as Bubbly has stated, no violation points will be assessed to the driver's record. It saves the driver from having to pay for a hike in her/his insurance but can also indirectly justify the city's ability to set a higher fine for such a violation. The penalty for the same violation under the CVC is approximately $200 where as the City of Long Beach wants $435...

To you Californians, why would she have been written under a local code and not the California Vehicle Code? Alot of the sections for traffic offenses under LBMC seem like they would be duplicates of state statutes.

Well, simply because the California Vehicle Code also specifies how the funds from its fines must be allocated (it goes to funds that are state controlled). So when the City of Long Beach cites a driver under its own Muni Code, that same code can also dictate how that revenue should be allocated.

 

[HighwayMan]

The penalty for the same violation under the CVC is approximately $200 where as the City of Long Beach wants $435...

And people here in NY have the nerve to complain about $120 fine for a similar offense...

I figured the local code vs CVC was a revenue thing.

Also, just because the DMV does not assess points for this violation, does that mean that the conviction does not appear at all on the driver's record?

If the conviction DOES appear, then I would think that it would work the same as here - DMV points only mean something to DMV for fine and suspension purposes. Insurance companies still use their own "points" system to determine rates.

For instance, here in NY driving while using a cell phone (no hands-free device) is a traffic infraction but it's no points. However, some insurance companies don't see it as such an innocent infraction and will penalize drivers if they find out about the conviction.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Also, just because the DMV does not assess points for this violation, does that mean that the conviction does not appear at all on the driver's record?

Its not that the DMV does not assess any points. The conviction is not reported to the DMV so they never find out about it and therefore, never assess any points.

And I agree about the way insurers have their own rating system.

 

[Zigner]

OP - did you pass the white sign that said "Right Turn Only"? Or, did you make your lane change over the solid white line?

 

[BubblyBrunette]

OP - did you pass the white sign that said "Right Turn Only"? Or, did you make your lane change over the solid white line?

I believe as soon as I saw the sign I merged over to the left. I am going to go back and look this weekend.

I live in another city and didn't get the bail amount until yesterday. Even though I got the ticket on 6/6/09 and I have until Monday to either request an extension or pay it. It took them a very long time to get this entered into the system.

 

[Jim_bo]

You should request your extension now. Then, you should prepare a TBWD. As I see it, you are absolutely NOT GUILTY!! The sign says that the right lane has to turn right, but you were not in the right lane. You merged out of it. Now, had the cop written you for crossing a solid white line, you may not have had much defense. But, he was greedy and chose to write you under a Muni code so the city could take your money. I'd really like to see anyone (Carl) argue that isn't a "ticket for revenue" scam!!

 

[Zigner]

You should request your extension now. Then, you should prepare a TBWD. As I see it, you are absolutely NOT GUILTY!! The sign says that the right lane has to turn right, but you were not in the right lane. You merged out of it.

Oh Brother!

He WAS in the right lane. If he merged AFTER the white (regulatory) sign, he's guilty. OP doesn't even remember at what point (before or after the sign) that he merged.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

a "ticket for revenue" scam!!

I say its a "ticket for allegedly violating a local ordinance". Just because it happens to generate revenue for the municipality does not make it a "scam".

You're entitled to your opinion though...

 

[CdwJava]

If the violation actually occurred, then it is hardly "a scam". Since the budget crunch, there have been a number of CA cities and counties that have opted to cite for muni codes rather than the Vehicle Code. More of the money goes to the city, and the driver gets no points on their license (and thus, no insurance hit). The argument is that it is a "win-win" of sorts.

However, in the medium to larger municipalities, these are often funneled through the City Attorney's office before going to the court, so it adds a new burden (expense and time) to the local government that some are not willing to do. I only know of one city in the Sacramento Valley (Roseville) that had opted to encourage officers to cite for the muni code, and the rest of the agencies are looking to see how that works out.

There is a tax revolt going on at the local level, so the local governments are looking for ways to keep the fines and penalties local rather than send them to the state so they can send back some of them after taking most of it for their own needs. If that's a "scam" in your mind, so be it.

- Carl

 

[I_Got_Banned]

There's also a sure fire way to avoid being "scammed"... Drive within the legal limits of the law... Sounds simple enough!!!

 

[Jim_bo]

I say its a "ticket for allegedly violating a local ordinance". Just because it happens to generate revenue for the municipality does not make it a "scam".

Charging $400+ for a ticket that is normally $200+ if charged through the CVC and then keeping all the money locally IS a scam. But then again, you may think that if I took your car without your knowlege or permission, that wouldn't make me a thief... right?

 

[Jim_bo]

If the violation actually occurred, then it is hardly "a scam". Since the budget crunch, there have been a number of CA cities and counties that have opted to cite for muni codes rather than the Vehicle Code. More of the money goes to the city, and the driver gets no points on their license (and thus, no insurance hit). The argument is that it is a "win-win" of sorts.

A "win-win"!!?!??!!??? What a bizzare interpretation by a state official. How is it a win if I pay double the already outrageous (based on other states) fine? I thought that was what the "traffic school bribe" was supposed to do. It seems that the munis are horning in on the state's scam and beating them at it... the only real looser is the motorist!!

From the other perspective, it is just as unreasonable. If a person is truly guilty of an offense under the CVC, he can escape increased insurance premiums by being educated (supposedly) in traffic school. While that is weak at best, at least it is an argument. However, if charged under a muni code, the guilty offender escapes an insurance increase by only paying the bribe to the municipality. From an insurance perspective, how is that a "win-win"???

The bottom line is... if the state said that we all had to drive around with rubber chickens tied to our heads... you'd see the validity and reasonableness in it. Sorry to be blunt, but you have drank the kool-aid and your obviously state-slanted bias shows.