21453A - Red Light Right Turn

[kuppam]

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

While taking right turn I was cited for not stopping at red signal, In the defendant copy, violation description it says - Red Light RT TURN.

In the court notice, I was citied for 21453A - Shouldn't i be cited for 21453B ?

Thanks
Justice

 

[Zigner]

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

While taking right turn I was cited for not stopping at red signal, In the defendant copy, violation description it says - Red Light RT TURN.

In the court notice, I was citied for 21453A - Shouldn't i be cited for 21453B ?

Thanks
Justice

Nope - your cite is valid.

 

[Jim_bo]

From what you have said, the validity of your ticket is weak at best.

So, let's see if I have this straight... your ticket had no reference to any section of the vehicle code?? If that is correct, I would argue that the ticket is defective on its face. After all, you have to actually be charged with something specific so that you may prepare a specific defense.

If your ticket (not the courtesy notice that is mailed to you... that is irrelevant) had 21453a on it, then I think you are right in that you should have been charged with 21453b. Still a good argument.

Keep in mind that the officer could send an ammendment and change the VC section quoted (or not quoted) on the ticket. One way to head that off would be to quickly file a TBWD. Once you have submitted that, the officer would not be able to change anything.

 

[Zigner]

From what you have said, the validity of your ticket is weak at best.

So, let's see if I have this straight... your ticket had no reference to any section of the vehicle code?? If that is correct, I would argue that the ticket is defective on its face. After all, you have to actually be charged with something specific so that you may prepare a specific defense.

If your ticket (not the courtesy notice that is mailed to you... that is irrelevant) had 21453a on it, then I think you are right in that you should have been charged with 21453b. Still a good argument.

Keep in mind that the officer could send an ammendment and change the VC section quoted (or not quoted) on the ticket. One way to head that off would be to quickly file a TBWD. Once you have submitted that, the officer would not be able to change anything.

I'm sorry - did you have any ACCURATE advice to give?

OP said: While taking right turn I was cited for not stopping at red signal (OP never stated that he actually DID stop)

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady
circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way
street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield
the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk
and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely
as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver
can proceed with reasonable safety.

 

[FlyingRon]

We've been through this a gahzillion times. The violation is properly (a). If you don't follow the condition in (b), you are violating (a) which says you MUST STOP EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN B.

You will not get anywhere attempting this silly argument in court.
Learn statutory consturction.

 

[Jim_bo]

I'm sorry - did you have any ACCURATE advice to give?

OP said: While taking right turn I was cited for not stopping at red signal (OP never stated that he actually DID stop)

21453. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall
stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision
(b).

Wow... it is amazing that one person can be that biased. You capitalize on the fact that the OP "never stated that he actually DID stop" to make your point that he is just guilty, but you totally glossed over the point that he OPs original post suggested that there was no VC section cited on the ticket, which would make the ticket defective.

I guess blinders aren't just for horses!!!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Jim_bo, are you in any way related to, connected or associated with JIMinCA?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Wow... You capitalize on the fact that the OP "never stated that he actually DID stop" to make your point that he is just guilty, but you totally glossed over the point that he OPs original post suggested that there was no VC section cited on the ticket, which would make the ticket defective.

I guess blinders aren't just for horses!!!

And BTW... In this post...

So, let's see if I have this straight... your ticket had no reference to any section of the vehicle code?? If that is correct, I would argue that the ticket is defective on its face. After all, you have to actually be charged with something specific so that you may prepare a specific defense.

... you capitalized on the fact that the OP never stated the citation referenced a vehicle code section for the violation when in fact the OP never stated that the citation didn't... he only mentioned the "description" part of the violation.

Also...

If your ticket (not the courtesy notice that is mailed to you... that is irrelevant) had 21453a on it, then I think you are right in that you should have been charged with 21453b. Still a good argument.

What information are you basing your "thinking" upon? The OP's post is highly lacking in information that could reasonably lead anyone to arrive att that conclusion.

 

[Jim_bo]

Take a look at a larger picture. The OP is here to solicit advice for a DEFENSE. You two geniuses habitually only tell people how guilty they are while rarely if ever offering a suggestion for a defense. Whenever someone does suggest an avenue for a defense, you two simply like to argue about it in an attempt to discredit the person trying to help and to demoralize the OP. Why you wouldn't try to suggest a defense as requested is beyond me. Some of them work, some don't. However, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

So, in this and practically any other thread in this forum... there are three things that can happen to the OPs.

1. Plead guilty as you would like for them to do.
2. Plead not guilty and fail in their defense. However, this costs them nothing more than a guilty plea (maybe a bit of their time).
3. Plead not guilty and win.

So, the way I see it, when an OP asks for advice and recieves it, you two would be INFINITELY more productive if you were to offer some suggestions for a defense rather than take a dump on any other defenses out there. If you guys are half as smart as your egos would believe that you are, you should be able to come up with some brilliant defenses. However, my suspicion is that you both are quite dim and you lead miserable lives. Your motives are clear, yet reprehensibe. The only way you gain any self-esteem is to bring down those around you by trying to dash any hopes they may have.

If someone offers a defense that you don't agree with, provide the OP with a better alternative. If you can't or you won't, then maybe you should just say nothing.

 

[The Occultist]

Take a look at a larger picture. The OP is here to solicit advice for a DEFENSE.

I stopped reading your post after this sentence, because it is blatantly wrong. At no point did the OP request any help/advice on building a defense, but merely asked a to-the-point question about the specific defense he was considering going with; the helpful thing to do in this situation was to point out to the OP that he was mistaken. Nice try, though!

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Jim_bo, are you in any way related to, connected or associated with JIMinCA?

Ahim.... Ahim... ^ ^

 

[Jim_bo]

I stopped reading your post after this sentence, because it is blatantly wrong. At no point did the OP request any help/advice on building a defense, but merely asked a to-the-point question about the specific defense he was considering going with; the helpful thing to do in this situation was to point out to the OP that he was mistaken. Nice try, though!

The OP was asking about a defense. You said so yourself.

I'm sure you stopped reading my post after reading the first sentence... but you stopped being helpful well before that.

 

[CdwJava]

While taking right turn I was cited for not stopping at red signal, In the defendant copy, violation description it says - Red Light RT TURN.

In the court notice, I was citied for 21453A - Shouldn't i be cited for 21453B ?

CVC 21453(a) is generally an included offense in 21453(b). Absent additional details, I'd say it is likely valid.

- Carl