California Ticket 2815 Failure to Obey Crossing Guard

[steve1234]

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

Here is the situation. I am at a T intersection (from the bottom of the "T") about to take a right. The crosswalk I "violated" (in quotes because I am not sure if I was in the wrong here, trying to determine that here) is not in front of me directly, but on the right side.

-The light for me is green
-The person being helped by the crossing guard reached the other side (opposite of where I am)
-The crossing guard is 3 steps from reaching the other side
-The crossing guard has his back turned to me
-The crossing guard is not telling me any signals therefore I take this as an ok to proceed to take the right

Right when I take the right turn (remember cross guard is 3 steps from the other side, not on my side) I get pulled over.

Did I do something wrong here? Do I HAVE to wait until he is literally on the other side? Can I fight this in court or is it an impossible case for me?
Appreciate the time and responses.

 

[sandyclaus]

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

Here is the situation. I am at a T intersection (from the bottom of the "T") about to take a right. The crosswalk I "violated" (in quotes because I am not sure if I was in the wrong here, trying to determine that here) is not in front of me directly, but on the right side.

-The light for me is green
-The person being helped by the crossing guard reached the other side (opposite of where I am)
-The crossing guard is 3 steps from reaching the other side
-The crossing guard has his back turned to me
-The crossing guard is not telling me any signals therefore I take this as an ok to proceed to take the right

Right when I take the right turn (remember cross guard is 3 steps from the other side, not on my side) I get pulled over.

Did I do something wrong here? Do I HAVE to wait until he is literally on the other side? Can I fight this in court or is it an impossible case for me?
Appreciate the time and responses.

I'm going to say, YES - you HAVE to wait until the crosswalk is completely clear AND the crossing guard has crossed safely and completely. While they are walking across and carrying their sign, I believe the right-of-way belongs to that guard and anyone they are assisting to cross the street.

 

[steve1234]

I'm going to say, YES - you HAVE to wait until the crosswalk is completely clear AND the crossing guard has crossed safely and completely. While they are walking across and carrying their sign, I believe the right-of-way belongs to that guard and anyone they are assisting to cross the street.

Appreciate the response sandyclaus

So its a lost case then? You wouldn't fight this in court? Also I hear if you lose in court you pay even more. Is that true?

 

[Zigner]

Did the guard still have the stop sign raised?

 

[steve1234]

Did the guard still have the stop sign raised?

Thanks for the response Zigner.

No he did not have his stop sign raised. He had his back towards me walking towards the curb on the other side. No palm up, nothing.

 

[Sloop John D]

Cal. Vehicle Code section 2815 - Any person who shall disregard any traffic signal or direction given by a nonstudent school crossing guard, appointed pursuant to Section 21100, or authorized by any city police department, any board of supervisors of a county, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol, when the guard is wearing the official insignia of such a school crossing guard, and when in the course of the guard's duties the guard is protecting any person in crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a place of safety, shall be guilty of an infraction and subject to the penalties provided in Section 42001.1.

The statute makes specific reference to obeying the traffic signal or direction given by the crossing guard. It makes no mention of any requirement to yield until the crossing guard is completely clear of the crosswalk. If the crossing guard was not raising his sign or in any other way directing you to remain stopped, then it should have been legal for you to proceed when safe.

 

[steve1234]

Cal. Vehicle Code section 2815 - Any person who shall disregard any traffic signal or direction given by a nonstudent school crossing guard, appointed pursuant to Section 21100, or authorized by any city police department, any board of supervisors of a county, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol, when the guard is wearing the official insignia of such a school crossing guard, and when in the course of the guard's duties the guard is protecting any person in crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a place of safety, shall be guilty of an infraction and subject to the penalties provided in Section 42001.1.

The statute makes specific reference to obeying the traffic signal or direction given by the crossing guard. It makes no mention of any requirement to yield until the crossing guard is completely clear of the crosswalk. If the crossing guard was not raising his sign or in any other way directing you to remain stopped, then it should have been legal for you to proceed when safe.

Thanks for replying Sloop John D.
Yeah I see what you are saying but when I reread the description for the 3rd time, the part where it says "...or while returning thereafter to a place of safety" made me think: is "place of safety" the sidewalk? or is it a safe distance away (3 steps in this case)? Seems a little vague to me. If anything, that is what determines whether I am guilty or not.

 

[Sloop John D]

Thanks for replying Sloop John D.
Yeah I see what you are saying but when I reread the description for the 3rd time, the part where it says "...or while returning thereafter to a place of safety" made me think: is "place of safety" the sidewalk? or is it a safe distance away (3 steps in this case)? Seems a little vague to me. If anything, that is what determines whether I am guilty or not.

It doesn't actually say you have to wait until they return to a place of safety. It's a bit confusing with the long bit in the middle of the paragraph about the type of crossing guard you have to obey. It's saying, "Any person who shall disregard any traffic signal or direction given by a...crossing guard...when in the course of the guard's duties the guard is protecting any person in crossing a street...or while returning thereafter to a place of safety, shall be guilty of an infraction."

What it's actually saying is you don't need to follow the direction of the crossing guard if he's not directing you while in performance of his job, and that would include while he's protecting people crossing the street or returning to a place of safety after protecting pedestrians. In other words, if some crossing guard is chilling in a parking lot on his lunch and starts directing cars, you can't get a ticket under 2815 for disobeying.

The entire violation turns on whether or not you disregarded a direction given by the crossing guard. If he wasn't holding up his sign or otherwise directing you to remain stopped, you didn't violate the statute. It's possible the CA courts have interpreted the statute differently, but this seems pretty clear on the face. I doubt they've held that you need to wait until the crossing guard is on the sidewalk if he's no longer directing you and it's safe to proceed.

 

[steve1234]

It doesn't actually say you have to wait until they return to a place of safety. It's a bit confusing with the long bit in the middle of the paragraph about the type of crossing guard you have to obey. It's saying, "Any person who shall disregard any traffic signal or direction given by a...crossing guard...when in the course of the guard's duties the guard is protecting any person in crossing a street...or while returning thereafter to a place of safety, shall be guilty of an infraction."

What it's actually saying is you don't need to follow the direction of the crossing guard if he's not directing you while in performance of his job, and that would include while he's protecting people crossing the street or returning to a place of safety after protecting pedestrians. In other words, if some crossing guard is chilling in a parking lot on his lunch and starts directing cars, you can't get a ticket under 2815 for disobeying.

The entire violation turns on whether or not you disregarded a direction given by the crossing guard. If he wasn't holding up his sign or otherwise directing you to remain stopped, you didn't violate the statute. It's possible the CA courts have interpreted the statute differently, but this seems pretty clear on the face. I doubt they've held that you need to wait until the crossing guard is on the sidewalk if he's no longer directing you and it's safe to proceed.

I hope you're right. I am planning on fighting it but I asked a few people (just friends, aquaintences, family, no one who is really well read on law) and they seemed to agree that I have to wait until hes (crossing guard) is on the sidewalk. Hopefully they're wrong.

One last thing, do you know if I have to pay extra if I lose in court? I heard you.

 

[Sloop John D]

I hope you're right. I am planning on fighting it but I asked a few people (just friends, aquaintences, family, no one who is really well read on law) and they seemed to agree that I have to wait until hes (crossing guard) is on the sidewalk. Hopefully they're wrong.

One last thing, do you know if I have to pay extra if I lose in court? I heard you.

Here's your options:

1. You can pay the ticket now, online or by mail, for the full cost of the fine. I would not recommend doing this.

2. You can appear in court on the date on your ticket. You'll appear before a judge who will ask you to plead guilty or not guilty. It's typical for the judge to offer a reduction in fine and traffic school to erase the point in exchange for a guilty plea at this appearance. It's a decent deal and if you're guilty of the offense or concerned about fighting the ticket, it's not a bad idea to enter a guilty plea at this stage.

3. You can fight the ticket in person. You enter a plea of not guilty and schedule a trial date. At trial the officer will appear and testify against you. You offer your defense and the judge makes a decision. If you lose you will most likely be required to pay the full amount of the fine. You can still request traffic school, but at this point I believe the decision about whether or not to allow you to do traffic school is up to the discretion of the judge. He is not supposed to deny your request, however, just because you exercised your right to a trial. This comes from CA rule of court 4.104. I generally would recommend against going straight for an in person trial because...

4. You can fight the ticket through a Trial By Written Declaration. In a TBWD, you write out a statement about what happened, offer your defense, and submit it to the court either electronically or by mail, and the police officer does the same. The judge reads both statements and makes a decision. If you lose, you can request a trial de novo. This means you get to have an in person trial that gives no consideration to the TBWD that you already lost, essentially giving you a second shot at beating the ticket. If you're going to fight it, this is the way to go.


I could not find any case law specific to Cal Vehicle Code section 2815, which probably means no court has ever interpreted this particular section before. This leaves the question of when you can proceed up for debate. As I said earlier, the language of the statute does not indicate that you must wait until the crossing guard is on the curb. It only states that you must obey any directions given by the crossing guard in the performance of his duties. I think this gives you a strong argument.

I would emphasize in a written statement that the Police officer was under the impression that driving through the intersection before the crossing guard reached the curb was a violation of the statute, but the statute contains no language indicating this is true.

The choice is up to you. It's your ticket, your money, and your time. If you decide to fight it, I might be able to assist you with the organization for your statement. No promises though.

 

[davew128]

I'm going to say, YES - you HAVE to wait until the crosswalk is completely clear AND the crossing guard has crossed safely and completely. While they are walking across and carrying their sign, I believe the right-of-way belongs to that guard and anyone they are assisting to cross the street.

Then explain your definition of right of way when pedestrians are on the other side of the street walking FROM you.

 

[justalayman]

Disregard of Nonstudent Crossing Guard

2815. Any person who shall disregard any traffic signal or direction given by a nonstudent school crossing guard, appointed pursuant to Section 21100, or authorized by any city police department, any board of supervisors of a county, or the Department of the California Highway Patrol, when the guard is wearing the official insignia of such a school crossing guard, and when in the course of the guard's duties the guard is protecting any person in crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a place of safety, shall be guilty of an infraction and subject to the penalties provided in Section 42001.1.

If I recall correctly, the pedestrian walkway laws demand that if the pedestrian is anywhere in the walk, even if it is the furthest away from the driver as they could be, it is a violation. If that is true, I would expect them to apply the same rule to this law and as such, yes, if the guard is 3 steps away from the other sidewalk and you cross the crosswalk line, you have violated the law.

 

[Sloop John D]

If I recall correctly, the pedestrian walkway laws demand that if the pedestrian is anywhere in the walk, even if it is the furthest away from the driver as they could be, it is a violation. If that is true, I would expect them to apply the same rule to this law and as such, yes, if the guard is 3 steps away from the other sidewalk and you cross the crosswalk line, you have violated the law.

In CA the rule is that a driver must provide enough space to avoid interference or threat of interference with a pedestrian. While this definition does not provide an exact measurement for drivers to follow, the courts have stated that it does not require the driver to wait until the pedestrian is completely clear of the crosswalk.

 

[justalayman]

In CA the rule is that a driver must provide enough space to avoid interference or threat of interference with a pedestrian. While this definition does not provide an exact measurement for drivers to follow, the courts have stated that it does not require the driver to wait until the pedestrian is completely clear of the crosswalk.

I am almost certain CDWJava said the if the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at all it was a violation. It was a discussion that the actions were very similar to this situation only it wasn't a school guard. The argument was; how do you know they aren;t going to turn around and come back across for some reason.


I tend to accept Carl's word on this stuff. I may be remembering incorrectly but I don't think I am.

 

[Sloop John D]

I am almost certain CDWJava said the if the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at all it was a violation. It was a discussion that the actions were very similar to this situation only it wasn't a school guard. The argument was; how do you know they aren;t going to turn around and come back across for some reason.


I tend to accept Carl's word on this stuff. I may be remembering incorrectly but I don't think I am.

The statute regarding yielding to the right of way of pedestrians is unique in that it's one of the few traffic regulation statutes that has been heavily litigated, mostly because it's used to establish liability on drivers who actually run into pedestrians. As a result, there's an unusual amount of court interpretation of this statute that most people, including police officers and traffic court judges, are completely unaware of. I would agree though that Cdwjava is a reliable source.

I think the case that most succinctly states the rule is People v. Hahn, 98 Cal.App.2d Supp. 841: "He is entitled not to just as much space as his body, clothes and buttons require, but to as much as will afford him a safe passage, one that can be taken without either physical interference or such a threat of interference that will reasonably cause him to step back or hesitate in his going."

If you leave enough space so that no one would reasonably be concerned that you're going to hit the pedestrian, then I think it's safe to assume you provided enough space to prevent violation of the statute.