bogus cvc 24400

[§hadow]

Im a 19 yr old male in California. Today (7/11/06) at around 8:15pm, I was driving a Red Saleen Mustang convertible in Walnut California. At the time of the incident the top was down. I was heading Eastbound attempting to make a left turn to head North leaving a shopping center parking lot. The exit from the parking lot is a 3 way traffic signal intersection. As I pulled out of the lot a bright light was shined directly in my face coming from a police vehicle that was in the far northbound lane. I was immediately blinded and I attempted to complete my turn and immediately pulled over to the curb as best as i could considering my eyes were trying to adjust from the bright light being shined directly into my eyes and still being reflected into my eyes by my rear view mirror . Once pulled over the officer approached my vehicle and asked me for my license, registration and proof of insurance. I said "Absolutely officer" and asked if i may reach into my wallet to get the license and insurance. The officer said: "If thats what you have to do". I slowly reached into my pocket not to call alarm to the officer or his partnerand i pulled out my license and began searching for my insurance. As was retrieving my insurance the officer asked me "Where are you heading?". I responded: "Im heading home officer." The officer then asked me "What are you out tonight?" I replied: "I just got off of work." The officer then asked me where I worked and I told him I worked At **** off of Azusa In-between ***** and ***. He then asked me what was my business in Walnut. I told him that i was supposed to be meeting up with some friends in the parking lot i just left. He then told me that the reason he pulled me over was because i didnt have my headlights on. I then said "Im sorry i was about to turn them on" and he responded with "uh huh". He then took my insurance and registration from me and walked to the front of my car and asked where my front license plate was. I told him that the car is exactly the way i bought it and didnt come with one. The officer asked if i bought the car used and i told him yes and he went back to his patrol car. I then asked his partner who was standing on the passenger side of my car if i could put the other stuff i took out of my wallet back in. He told me i could and i did so. After about 10 to 15 min the citing officer returned with a citation for driving without headlights and no front license plate. I signed the citation without rebuttal and told the officers to have a good night.

I plan to fix the front license plate but am wondering if i have place to fight the headlight ticket. Before i had left the parking lot property i had the light shined in my face and was only concerned about pulling over because i could not see very well. Is it legal for them to begin to pull me over for headlights before i even get on the street. I have fought by written declaration before and i want to know if thats a good idea for this one. Can i fight it by Written Dec even though it is for 2 citations of which 1 is fixable by prooving the problem has been fixed? I need all the help i can get

 

[CdwJava]

I plan to fix the front license plate but am wondering if i have place to fight the headlight ticket. Before i had left the parking lot property i had the light shined in my face and was only concerned about pulling over because i could not see very well.

The law requires the lights to be on ... so, unless your defense was that you were blinded before you started your car, your not going to fare well.

You can try the argument, but don't expect it to work.

Is it legal for them to begin to pull me over for headlights before i even get on the street.

The section does not have a public roadway requirement:

24400. (a) During darkness and inclement weather, a motor vehicle,
other than a motorcycle, shall be equipped with at least two lighted
headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the
vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1,
1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front
axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any
headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches
nor less than 22 inches.

You were in a motor vehicle, so it needed to be equipped with two lighted headlamps at times of darkness (and since sunset was 8:31 PM today, you were within the half hour before sunset that defines the time of darkness in the Vehicle Code).

I have fought by written declaration before and i want to know if thats a good idea for this one. Can i fight it by Written Dec even though it is for 2 citations of which 1 is fixable by prooving the problem has been fixed? I need all the help i can get

Yes, you can fight it by written declaration ... though it's not likely to turn out well for you unless the officer does not respond.

- Carl

 

[§hadow]

Is this right?

I went yesterday to the court because i hadnt recieved my courtesy notice and wanted to get this taken care of and they told me that it still hasnt been filed and that i must come back closer to the court date. (The court date is the 3rd of sept). I then asked the clerk why i must come back when my citation said i had to appear on or before that date and i am here. He said I have till that date to appear only if the officer has filed it already. I then asked him what would happen if i show up on sept 3rd and its still not filed? He told me that they will stamp the citation saying that i showed but the officer will still has 365 days to file the citation. I got extremely pissed but zipped my lip and walked out of the court house. IS THIS LEGIT!!!!!!! CAN THEY MAKE ME COME BACK EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY FULFILLED MY PROMISE OF APPEARING? sorry for the caps but im livid. I wasted a nice portion of my day going to that court since i dont live anywhere near it. I am a fulltime student and will not beable to show up the 3rd of sept thats why i came yesterday. Is there anyway this can be used in an argument in court to get this case dismissed? This is rediculous.

 

[seniorjudge]

I went yesterday to the court because i hadnt recieved my courtesy notice and wanted to get this taken care of and they told me that it still hasnt been filed and that i must come back closer to the court date. (The court date is the 3rd of sept). I then asked the clerk why i must come back when my citation said i had to appear on or before that date and i am here. He said I have till that date to appear only if the officer has filed it already. I then asked him what would happen if i show up on sept 3rd and its still not filed? He told me that they will stamp the citation saying that i showed but the officer will still has 365 days to file the citation. I got extremely pissed but zipped my lip and walked out of the court house. IS THIS LEGIT!!!!!!! Yes; it's called a continuance. CAN THEY MAKE ME COME BACK EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY FULFILLED MY PROMISE OF APPEARING? sorry for the caps but im livid. I wasted a nice portion of my day going to that court since i dont live anywhere near it. I am a fulltime student and will not beable to show up the 3rd of sept thats why i came yesterday. Is there anyway this can be used in an argument in court to get this case dismissed? This is rediculous.

Standard answer

Here are some hints on appearing in court:

Dress professionally in clean clothes.

Do not wear message shirts.

Don't chew gum, smoke, or eat. (Smokers...pot or tobacco...literally stink. Remember that before you head for court.)

Bathe and wash your hair.

Do not bring small children or your friends.

Go to court beforehand some day before you actually have to go to watch how things go.

Speak politely and deferentially. If you argue or dispute something, do it professionally and without emotion.

Ask the court clerk who you talk to about a diversion (meaning you want to plead to a different, lesser charge), if applicable in your situation. Ask about traffic school and that the ticket not go on your record, if applicable. Ask also about getting a hardship driving permit, if applicable. Ask about drug court, if applicable.

From marbol:

“Judge...

You forgot the one thing that I've seen that seems to frizz up most judges these days:

If you have a cell phone, make DAMN SURE that it doesn't make ANY noise in the courtroom. This means when you are talking to the judge AND when you are simply sitting in the court room.

If you have a ‘vibrate’ position on your cell phone, MAKE sure the judge DOESN'T EVEN HEAR IT VIBRATE!

Turn it off or put it in silent mode where it flashes a LED if it rings. AND DON'T even DREAM about answering it if it rings.”

(Better yet, don’t carry your cell phone into the courtroom.)”


Here are six stories that criminal court judges hear the most (and I suggest you do not use them or variations of them):

1. I’ve been saved! (This is not religion specific; folks from all kinds of religious backgrounds use this one.)

2. My girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter/wife/ex-wife/niece/grandma/grand-daughter is pregnant/sick/dying/dead/crippled/crazy and needs my help.

3. I’ve got a job/military posting in [name a place five hundred miles away].

4. This is the first time I ever did this. (This conflicts with number 5 below, but that hasn’t stopped some defendants from using both.)

5. You’ve got the wrong guy. (A variation of this one is the phantom defendant story: “It wasn’t me driving, it was a hitchhiker I picked up. He wrecked the car, drug me behind the wheel then took off.” Or, another variation: “I was forced into it by a bad guy!”)

6. I was influenced by a bad crowd.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=854687#post854687

Public defender’s advice

http://newyork.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/70300494.html


Other people may give you other advice; stand by.

 

[cepe10]

The LEO is obviuously usiing excuses to perform unlawful searching/ questioning.

I don't see how the charge stands for parking lots or driveways - only streets.

You should at least request a continuance if you can't make the date.

If he didn't provide any notice of the contiunuace I would bring that up - seems quite unproffesional and disrespectful of the court.

If he shows, You can and should question the LEO as to why he dangerously shined a light in your eyes and failed to appear on the first date and was casing you for a traffic violation before you were on a municipal steet...

 

[CdwJava]

IS THIS LEGIT!!!!!!! CAN THEY MAKE ME COME BACK EVEN THOUGH I ALREADY FULFILLED MY PROMISE OF APPEARING?

Yes they can.

If the requirement were simply to show, then someone could get a cite and then drive straight to the courthouse while the cite was still in the officer's cite book. The court has no record of the citation.

You can appear before the court date if they have a record of the citation. Otherwise, they cannot even deal with it because they have no record to deal with.

I am a fulltime student and will not beable to show up the 3rd of sept thats why i came yesterday. Is there anyway this can be used in an argument in court to get this case dismissed? This is rediculous.

Nope. It is an invalid argument.

You can find out how to request a postponement, but the courts usually only allow one postponement so be sure that if you do this that you get a date that you CAN make it.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

The LEO is obviuously usiing excuses to perform unlawful searching/ questioning.

Really. Why "obviously"? The vehicle had no front plate and the headlights were not on - these are valid reasons to make a stop.

I don't see how the charge stands for parking lots or driveways - only streets.

Read the CA vehicle code.

You should at least request a continuance if you can't make the date.

They likely allow just the one. So, hoipefully the OP can get one on a date that he can attend.

If he didn't provide any notice of the contiunuace I would bring that up - seems quite unproffesional and disrespectful of the court.

So far the court or the officer has not asked for a continuance.

If he shows, You can and should question the LEO as to why he dangerously shined a light in your eyes and failed to appear on the first date and was casing you for a traffic violation before you were on a municipal steet...

Oh, PLEASE! I foresee a judge rolling his eyes on that one.

These are zero-point violations, so paying the fine and having done with it might be the most advantageous course of action.

- Carl

 

[cepe10]

have to agree wih the sero points thing - if correct it is easier to pay.

Again their is zero excuse for shining the spot light directly into the windshield of a car proceeding into an intersection from a parking lot... That is really dangerous really should be treated as a crime. and since the LEO came up empty in his search/questioning - the lame citation was the result...

Again they intent of the law is key, clearly people in their driveways/parking lots do not have to have their headlights on, just because it is dark...

 

[Zigner]

You were in a motor vehicle, so it needed to be equipped with two lighted headlamps at times of darkness (and since sunset was 8:31 PM today, you were within the half hour before sunset that defines the time of darkness in the Vehicle Code).
- Carl

Carl - you have this one backwards. "Darkness" is defined as 1/2 hour AFTER sunset to 1/2 hour BEFORE sunrise.
OP - you need to go in to court with evidence of the actual time of sunset (I'll take Carl's word that it was 8:31 pm).
However, if the officer testifies that the visibility was less than 1000 feet, then you are out of luck because that's the exception to the darkness definition.

EDIT:
See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc280.htm

 

[CdwJava]

Again their is zero excuse for shining the spot light directly into the windshield of a car proceeding into an intersection from a parking lot...

There could be a lot of reasons why the officer shined a light in their direction - any number of them valid, and many for safety reasons. So you are wrong that there is "zero excuse".

That is really dangerous really should be treated as a crime. and since the LEO came up empty in his search/questioning - the lame citation was the result...

Your opinion ... not a legal one. You may see the citation as lame, but, in reality, most violent felons are encountered and arrested on "lame" traffic stops. I arrested a wanted violent felon just last night on a "lame" violation of a car rolling through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop. The week before a found a parolee-at-large (i.e. "wanted") on a "lame" registration violation. And a couple of weeks before that, we had a near fatal collision involving a vehicle that neglected to have it's headlights on as it straddled the lines.

Fortunately, the law does not define these violations as "lame."

Again they intent of the law is key, clearly people in their driveways/parking lots do not have to have their headlights on, just because it is dark...

That's funny, because in this state they often do ... depending on the parking lot and driveway. In this case, they were coming form an offstreet parking facility and the lights and the plate were necessary.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

However, if the officer testifies that the visibility was less than 1000 feet, then you are out of luck because that's the exception to the darkness definition.

That's the inclement weather exception under section (b) ... Section (a) - for darkness - has no such restriction.

- Carl

 

[Zigner]

That's the inclement weather exception under section (b) ... Section (a) - for darkness - has no such restriction.

- Carl

The definition for darkness in the Cal. Vehicle Code is section 280:

"280. "Darkness" is any time from one-half hour after sunset to
one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is
not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on
the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

So, if darkness is not further defined in the specific section he was cited for, then the definition in section 280 would apply.

 

[CdwJava]

The definition for darkness in the Cal. Vehicle Code is section 280:

"280. "Darkness" is any time from one-half hour after sunset to
one-half hour before sunrise and any other time when visibility is
not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on
the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

So, if darkness is not further defined in the specific section he was cited for, then the definition in section 280 would apply.

You have to break it down appropriately ... darkness is the following:

"...any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise ..."

As well as ...

"... any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

There are two seperate definitions defining two seperate ways that darkness may occur. This is how the courts see it as well.

- Carl

 

[cepe10]

That's funny, because in this state they often do ... depending on the parking lot and driveway. In this case, they were coming form an offstreet parking facility and the lights and the plate were necessary.

- Carl

Again I understand why you have your perspective, however this LEO is using the transporation codes for something they were not intended instead of proper investigative procedures.

also, sitting in a parking stall while your wife goes into your store and turning off your headlamps would not be a crime, but you are aying it is...

I'm sure you would have a BIG problem if the same where applied to you. I.E. say for instance I came by your house at 8:15 pm shined a spotlight into your windows to see if you were doing anything illegal then decided to condemn your house based upon by official role as a municipal engineer based on a small crack in your foundation or something and I used the most heavy handed interpretation of the statutes possible to justify it.

 

[Zigner]

You have to break it down appropriately ... darkness is the following:

"...any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise ..."

As well as ...

"... any other time when visibility is not sufficient to render clearly discernible any person or vehicle on the highway at a distance of 1,000 feet."

There are two seperate definitions defining two seperate ways that darkness may occur. This is how the courts see it as well.

- Carl

Yes - you and I are saying the same thing then
I was saying that, if you also could not see 1,000 feet, then it would be considered "darkness" regardless of what the time of day is.
(I was very close to where OP was at 8:13 last night and it was already dark enough to make visibility difficult at 1,000 feet - so I think OP is going to be stuck on this one.)