Failure to Yield to Pedestrian Ticket (21950a) - California

[vc4re]

What is the name of your state? California

I want to contest a traffic ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian (21950a). I had a few quesitons regarding if I have a case or if I can get them on a technicality based on the following. Basically, I want to know how I can do this effectively without making the judge upset based on the following:

I was driving eastbound on the right hand lane on xxxxx blvd. less than the posted speed limit, I believe to be 35mph but I didn't actually check. I was making a right turn southbond into a college on xxxxxx Rd. The traffic was pretty heavy that day, with cars all around me. I came to a red light, turned on my right blinker, and drove through the bike lane ready to make my turn. A car ahead of me made his turn and right after I made my mine. As I was preapring to make my turn, I inched up (10mph as indicated by my appx. speed) to keep pace with traffic and not stop suddenly as to disturb the cars in front me. When I turned a pedestrian was barely crossing the street (could not have been more than 3 steps out. Since it happened all so fast and I never saw the ped. step off in front of me due to the car ahead of me, I made my turn thinking that I could not stop and block the intersection, making him prone to accident from the heavy traffic. I have thought of all the ways to contest the ticket and here are the possible arguments I came up with.

1. I thought to bring evidence of the traffic situation at the specific time and place of the violation and show that the officer's view may have been obscured. I would also tell my events, but its a he said/she said situation that the officer always wins.

2. Also, I noticed some possible errors on the ticket. The direction of travel indicated I was going east, but when I made the violation I was actually going southbound. There is a crosswalk going east, but it is at a red light and the only possible way to violate that code was to run a red light or go over the line. I was charged with neither.

3. According to 40502(a), I believe, the arresting officer must indicate on the notice to appear a courthouse "nearest or most accessible" to the place of the accident. He put the Palo Alto Courthouse when actually the courthouse in Downtwon San Jose is closer to that courthouse and equally accessible. Should I use this violation on grounds to dismiss my case or simply move my trial location, which would increase the chance the officer would not answer my trial by declaration, travel to the courthouse outside his "home court", or use his relationships and mutual respect for the judges in his home court. Plus, I heard the court in Palo Alto had a bad reputation.

If any other possible arguments come to mind, please let me know. Are any of these facts arguable? Also, what are some possible arguments from the officer and how I can I counter a he said/she said situation. I feel that I was wrongly cited just so they can get money! Help me beat this!

[efflandt]

I know you are probably excited (and a little hard to follow). But it sounds like you were facing east, and made a right turn on red when you should not have, due to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. It is your responsibilty to make sure that the intersection is clear before you make a move from your stop.

1. Traffic is even more reason to be cautious, and look before you leap.

2. You said you were going "east" before the violation (at right turn). So how is that a mistake?

[vc4re]

I see your point...it just happened all so fast and the ped. was so far away that he was never really in any danger (me going 10mph). Also, maybe it depends what's meant by direction of travel. I was moving toward the south when I committed the violation where another crosswalk at a light was east if I kept going straight. If I was maneuvering toward the east I would of either went past the line or ran the light not turn. I was thinking maybe to argue that the officer has a lack of evidence since he didnt cite me for that or it is unclear which crosswalk it was. I dont know...looks like my best bet is to request a change of venue, do a trial by written declaration, and hope the officer doesn't rebuttal with one of his own at a courthouse not near him. You know many people have told me that in traffic school there have been huge debates about driving past a crosswalk even when the ped. is all the way on the other side.

[CdwJava]

There is no clear interpretation for where in the crosswalk a pedestrian has to be before the violation is complete ... I have seen courts take it to mean ANYWHERE, and others to mean anywhere within quick running distance (usually about 20-25 feet from the vehicle). The judge could decide anything.

As for a change of venue, how is that going to effect a TBWD? When you change the court hearing the matter (IF you will be allowed to do that within the county), the court will send him the document and it will be returned to the same court - it's not like he has to retrieve and then manually return the document. All you might do is give one or both of you a longer drive to court ... who knows, he may actually live closer to the new court selection and may appreciate the change.

- Carl

[vc4re]

Well my case is going to be tough but I got nothing to lose in a TBWD from what I understand. In changing venue, I hear they are nicer there and it is closer to my house. I am new to this ticket process and don't understand it that much, so my question for everyone is what's my plan of attack? I want to avoid a he said/she said situation and stick to evidence or a technicality but I don't see any doors opening up. Thanks Carl for that info. I don't know exactly how far he was but he was close to the far side (maybe 3 steps out). I was only going 10mph according to the ticket and was no where near hitting him, never threatening his safety.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by vc4re

In changing venue, I hear they are nicer there and it is closer to my house.

Some counties don't change court locations that easily ... yours might be different.

I am new to this ticket process and don't understand it that much, so my question for everyone is what's my plan of attack? I want to avoid a he said/she said situation and stick to evidence or a technicality but I don't see any doors opening up.

Well, you can seek the officer's notes through discovery and at least that might tell you what the officer saw and how he is likely to testify.

Thanks Carl for that info. I don't know exactly how far he was but he was close to the far side (maybe 3 steps out). I was only going 10mph according to the ticket and was no where near hitting him, never threatening his safety.

All you may be able to do is simply make those explanations and hope the local court does not subscribe to the "anywhere in the crosswalk" interpretation.

- Carl

[vc4re]

My question about the discvoery motion is isnt it more likely to remind the officer details about the case? What kind of hard evidence can I use instead of having a he said/she said situation. And can my change of venue be granted if the officer did not put me in the courthouse "nearest and most accessible" to the place of the accident according to 40502(a)? Once again, thank you for the information Carl. You know a lot!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by vc4re

My question about the discvoery motion is isnt it more likely to remind the officer details about the case?

No. He doesn't fill the request. The request will eventually wind it's way down from the DA or the court (depending on the process in your county) to the agency's records department who will then make the copy and forward it. The officer does not retain these notes as they are usually on the officer's copy of the citation.

What kind of hard evidence can I use instead of having a he said/she said situation.

I'm not sure there is any "hard" evidence. You can make drawings and diagrams, but these are interpretations and not "hard" evidence.

And can my change of venue be granted if the officer did not put me in the courthouse "nearest and most accessible" to the place of the accident according to 40502(a)? Once again, thank you for the information Carl. You know a lot!

They can grant your request for any reason they feel like - for the most part. And the nearest and most accessible court house is that which is most accessible to the officer and his agency. There are usually few options for an officer unless he is working an unusual place in a sprawl such as Los Angeles or San Bernardino, the traffic cases will be heard in roughly the same place for each agency.

Some counties are freer with changing venue within the county than others - it's a matter of logistics, for the most part.

- Carl

[vc4re]

Well, the County I am in there is a sprawl, with like five or six courthouses in there. The way I interpreted 40502a ((a) Before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense AND is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made.) The statement in bold was not fulfilled technically speaking.

As for the ticket, I think my only chance would be check his notes and see if theres any contradicting evidence or prove there is not enough evidence something like that. If they have the loose interpretation of the crosswalk all the better! The only thing is I can't really say is the officer's position because I didn't see him until after he stopped me. We'll see...

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by vc4re

Well, the County I am in there is a sprawl, with like five or six courthouses in there. The way I interpreted 40502a ((a) Before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense AND is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made.) The statement in bold was not fulfilled technically speaking.

Well, not every courthouse hears traffic matters (i.e. jurisdiction). And since nearest and most accessible can have a subjective element, that is not something I'd hang my hat on. It's very likely the location you were cited in to is the one where traffic arraignments for that agency are heard. Unless the officer was visiting another end of the county when he gave you the ticket, this is a matter that has been resolved beforehand and the addresses are likely pre-printed on the citation. I know of very few agencies (mostly sheriff's offices and the CHP) where there are multiple traffic court possibilities.

As I said, you can ask - you can even point this section out - but a change of venue will be offered more as a matter of policy one way or the other. If you wish to fight the matter, you can go right ahead ... though, I don't see where making a court fight over which court hears the matter will benefit you a great deal.

As for the ticket, I think my only chance would be check his notes and see if theres any contradicting evidence or prove there is not enough evidence something like that. If they have the loose interpretation of the crosswalk all the better! The only thing is I can't really say is the officer's position because I didn't see him until after he stopped me. We'll see...

The officer's notes may be complete, or they may be very short. There's no way to tell. Ultimately, I suspect you will have to rely on the court's interpretation of the section as to what constitutes a person in the crosswalk for purposes of the section cited.

[vc4re]

Well it was the sheriff's office got me and I know for a fact that the downtown courthouse closer to my house hears traffic matters (with better reputation) so who knows I will see.
As for relying on the interpretation of the ped. in the crosswalk, I guess it can go either way, but how would I go about proving he was safe and never in any danger?
The only way I see it is that driving at a safe 10mph, if he was so close, I would have been close to hitting him and the officer even acknowledged that he was far from me, but I still had to yield. I'll get the officer's notes and see what I can argue.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by vc4re

Well it was the sheriff's office got me and I know for a fact that the downtown courthouse closer to my house hears traffic matters (with better reputation) so who knows I will see.

The worst that can happen to your request is they turn you down.

As for relying on the interpretation of the ped. in the crosswalk, I guess it can go either way, but how would I go about proving he was safe and never in any danger?

You can't PROVE the pedestrian was not in danger - you can only show it by your testimony. But, keep in mind that NONE of the elements of CVC 21950(a) includes anything related to "safe":

21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to
a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or
within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise
provided in this chapter.

The state must show that the driver (you) failed to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian within a marked crosswalk - that's it. If the judge interprets this to mean that you must yield the entire crosswalk before and after the pedestrian, then you are likely toast. If the judge applies the "half street" rule (or something similar - i.e. the ped. is on the half of the crosswalk away from you) then you might be okay.

All you can do is tell the truth and why you made the turn believing there was no danger to the pedestrian.


- Carl

[vc4re]

Well I know for a fact that he was not in the center so I will try and hopefully they ackgnowledge the half way rule. If I am able to question the officer maybe I can ask where the ped. was if he doesnt specify in his notes (thats what they review before the trial anyway) and if he says he was not halfway or better yet that he "doesnt know or cant remember" (and there was traffic I believe obscuring his view) then maybe I can have a good case. Talking to many people, they said they do what I did all the time. You say you worked in Northern California and thats where the citation occured. I know its a stretch though but do you happen to know what court does acknowledge the "half-way" rule or how I can find out. I'm just afraid the officer will lie and say the ped. was closer to me in his eyes.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by vc4re

I know its a stretch though but do you happen to know what court does acknowledge the "half-way" rule or how I can find out. I'm just afraid the officer will lie and say the ped. was closer to me in his eyes.

I doubt the officer has any reason to "lie" ... he gets paid the same whether he wins or not. if his court holds that ANY ped. in a crosswalk requires a driver to yield, you will be found guilty. If not, then the officer will likely say where he recalls seeing the pedestrian. Even if we don't have full observation of the pedestrian, it's not like they are out of sight for more than an instant. most peds. stand above the height of cars and are relatively easy to be seen.

As for courts that decide one way or the other, I have no idea. My county has at least two traffic court judges and I couldn't even tell you what THEY might decide in this area as it is a relatively uncommon citation, for the most part. I usually follow the half way rule ... if you cross behind the ped. and he or she is half way across, then I won't likely cite. If the ped is halfway across and you cross in front of him or her, I will likely cite. But, it also depends on speed, the size of the road, and whether or not you yielded for the light or stop sign prior to proceeding ... if one was present.

- Carl

[vc4re]

Well I can say that I was only going a safe 10mph, I would say the crosswalk was at least 40 ft, and I know for a fact that I yielded to the red light, I believe I even stopped. I'll go the site tomorrow and check on some details, maybe something will open up. So I think I am just gonna hope he says or I get him to admit that the ped was less then halfway, that I was going at a safe speed, and the I made some effort to yield then hope the judge interprets the law your way. Thanks!

Also, I had another question for the comments he made. All he put was C/D/MT and have no idea what the D means to describe the road.