• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Given a ticket not related to the actual violation

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

highpster

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I was driving down PCH in Long Beach on vacation with my family. When I came upon a slow moving car, I hastily drove around that car right in front of 4 motorcycle cops waiting to give out tickets. Needless to say I was pulled over.

The officer gave me a ticket and told me the ticket could be paid online and was not a moving violation and would not go on my record. He said since I was out of town this would be eaiser than having to come back to court.

The violation he wrote on the ticket was "10.08.030 LBMC" "Fail to obey a sign"

The ticket says approx. speed 34 and speed limit 40, radar was checked.

Do I consider myself lucky and pay the $380.00 fine? Or do I try to get it reduced by declaration?

Thanks for any inputWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What sign did you not obey? Did you cut in to a "right turn only" lane? Were you in a "no passing" zone?
 

Hey There

Member
Checking on the internet I keep coming with the fact that
10.08.030 isn't a vehicle code citation but is a municipal code.
If this is the case it will require some research as to court rules that apply when contesting a municipal code violation.

From an Upland ,CA. website
Title 10 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
Chapter 10.08 ENFORCEMENT AND OBEDIENCE TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS

10.08.030 Persons authorized to enforce municipal traffic and parking codes and ordinances.
Enforcement of municipal codes and ordinances pertaining to traffic and parking regulation shall be the regular responsibility of each officer of the police department or persons authorized by the chief of police to enforce such municipal codes and ordinances. Persons granted the authority to enforce municipal codes and ordinances by the chief of police shall be subject to the provisions specified under Division 11, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California entitled “Local Regulation.” (Prior code § 3301.01(a))

Another website states that under conditions of public danger
the superintendant of public works or someone designated by him
may install temporary traffic signal controls.

Some lawyers give a one time consultation for no fee or a modest one. The Yellow pages should have a few listings.

Google: How To Choose A Lawyer

Best Regards,
Hey There
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
To parrot Zigner, what sign are they alleging you failed to obey?

Here is your violation:

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. (Prior code § 3410.14).​

- carl
 

highpster

Junior Member
Not sure what sign it was

The officer never explained what I actually did. I guess he thought he was being nice by giving me a non moving violation.

I passed the slow car on a open lane on the right. It was not a turning lane and there was no other traffic.
 

Hey There

Member
Were you issued a
Notice to Appear
or
Notice of Municipal Code Violation?

There should be a phone # and address to contact on your ticket.
The website where you can pay online should also list other options that are available
or what to do should be printed on the back of the ticket.

Perhaps this was a no passing zone?

Best Regards,
Hey There
 
I think he was just being kind, and not making you appear in court. Or maybe he felt that four police on bikes are a good SIGN not to break the law.

Seriously though, A person I knew a while back ( son of my neighbor ) was up from Tennessee to visit, and while here got busted with some weed. The cop was kind enough to give him a minor misdemeanor charge where he wouldn't have to appear simply called drug abuse here in Ohio, which basically states that you either admit to an officer, or the officer finds you to be under the influence of an illegal drug but don't possess said drug on your person. Instead of the possession charge which at the time would have landed him in jail for a night or two, big fines, reporting probation, and a first degree misdemeanor on his record.

The possession charge here in Ohio changes all the time though, just a month after that happened they made possession of less than 32 grams a minor misdemeanor with the same consequences as jay walking.

Then about a year ago it was put back to the first degree misdemeanor charge as it was originally.
 

trik

Junior Member
i got the same ticket

so what did you finally do? did u go to court or did u pay the fine? i just got the same ticket as you, failure to obey sign. mine was for speeding.
 

CaptainR

Junior Member
Hi Guys,

I just got into the same situation. LB Police gave me a speeding ticket 100 yards before I turn into the building I work. Make a long story short, he told me that he did me a favor and gave me a city violation ticket so no traffic school is necessary and doesn't count as s point! His violation code is 10.08.030 fail to obey the speed sign. I just got a hefty $400 ticket that I would like to contest but don't know the consequences in case the cop shows up. First of is this true that this ticket doesn't go on records if you even don't sign up for traffic school? Second, do you know what would happen if i contest it.

I wish the originator of this thread told us what happened. I did lots of search only to find this thread.

Any help is appreciated.
Ray
The officer never explained what I actually did. I guess he thought he was being nice by giving me a non moving violation.

I passed the slow car on a open lane on the right. It was not a turning lane and there was no other traffic.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Make a long story short, he told me that he did me a favor and gave me a city violation ticket so no traffic school is necessary and doesn't count as s point!
That is correct. It does not go on your driving record.
His violation code is 10.08.030 fail to obey the speed sign.
Here is the section:
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.​
I just got a hefty $400 ticket that I would like to contest but don't know the consequences in case the cop shows up.
You would proceed to trial. Or, you can plead guilty and ask for leniency with any fines. The first appearance, however, should be for the arraignment and no cop will be there.

First of is this true that this ticket doesn't go on records if you even don't sign up for traffic school? Second, do you know what would happen if i contest it.
Cities have begun to resort to this more and more because to some it is a "win win" situation. Offenders do not have this go on their driving record, and they tend to face small fines (when fines and fees are added in). The cities get to collect more of the money and less goes to the state, so the cities win (that is, until the legislature catches on and passes legislation to plug that hole). However, it also means that bad drivers may continue to have poor driving habits and it will not be reflected on their DMV history. It also means that there will be little incentive to plead guilty, and more cites will probably go to trial. So, any financial savings may well be lost by the added overtime fro traffic court.

If you wish to continue the topic further, you should start your own thread.

- Carl
 

Pugilist

Member
This is spreading...

I am hoping that this new and rapidly spreading trend - administrative cites for moving violations - does not survive the upcoming legislative session in Sacramento. I would oppose these admin cites even in places where, unlike Long Beach, the admin cites are bargain priced compared to Vehicle Code cites. Why? Because I don't like kangaroo courts, and I also see that these admin cites are ripe for profiling. How? If the cop likes you, or you're part of a favored "local" group, he might issue you the (usually cheaper) admin cite. If he doesn't like you, or you are from out of town, you get the expensive CVC ticket. (Or in LB, vice-versa!)

I concede that local agencies (cities, counties, etc.) are allowed to set up procedures to enforce building and fire codes, animal regulations, etc. - local ordinances covering matters not otherwise covered by State codes. Typical of the type of violation that a city might be expected to enforce via its own ordinances would be park hours, littering, dogs, and parking, to name a few. However, with its general purpose "obey all signs" ordinance LB is seeking to duplicate provisions that are already covered by State code, namely Vehicle Code Section 21461 which states, in part:

"(a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory...."

LB cannot declare something unlawful when the State Legislature has already declared it unlawful and has provided not only enforcement procedures but also the penalties for such violations. The State Supreme Court:

"Local legislation in conflict with general law is void. Conflicts exist if the ordinance duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general [State] law, either expressly or by legislative implication." (Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994), 7 Cal.4th 725, 747.) (Emphasis added.)

Additionally, LB's administrative enforcement of violations of its own ordinance making it illegal to disobey a sign, which the Vehicle Code make a moving violation, would override the comprehensive statutory scheme for punishment of persons who have a history of moving violations. The Vehicle Code prohibits such schemes:

VC 21. Except as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable and uniform throughout the State and in all counties and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any ordinance on the matters covered by this code unless expressly authorized herein.

It is abundantly clear that the State Legislature has completely occupied the field of traffic enforcement and left no room for LB to substitute its own enforcement of traffic regulations, save for the enforcement of parking regulations, which the Legislature has delegated to local agencies.

Ask the judge to dismiss the case because the city's ordinance is illegal. And ask him to do it "with prejudice," so that the city cannot re-file against you, this time under the Vehicle Code.
__________________
Pugilist
Always Fights His Tickets
 

CaptainR

Junior Member
I went to court and presented my case since there was no construction going on. First of all my officer was there unlike other 35 people that got lucky. Judge put an investigation on the case to see if at time of violation if there was any active construction and I ended up getting about $200 refund from $430 ticket! I thought I do respond just in case this was anyone else's problem out there!
 

Pugilist

Member
How the scam works...

How the scam works...

They write you up for the $430 speed violation, under the muni code. Most motorists are too busy or stressed out to fight their tickets, they just mail the money in to the city. So the city gets to keep $430 on nearly all the tickets.

On the small minority of tickets where the motorist fights, pleads not guilty and takes it to court, the police or the judge will amend the charge to the proper section under the Vehicle Code, find the motorist guilty, and the total fine will be below $300 (CaptainR said it saved him about $200), with the City's take-home share being much less - around $80.

How to fight this scam? Contact the court and set up an arraignment date. At that court appearance, instead of entering a not guilty plea, do a "demurrer." (Whazzat? Look it up on wikipedia. But please note: Demurrers can only be done before entering a plea.)
Basis for the demurrer in this situation is that the muni code section is not a legitimate charging section for speeding as the use of a city law violates CVC 21 and Morehart v. Santa Barbara.

Too bad we can't trust our police or our local govts. anymore.

Where is this going? Why shouldn't a city that really needs money (Long Beach doesn't - it has a phenominal $1.8 billion of liquid investments, about $4000 per resident) start writing up a bunch of DUI's, but not under the CVC or H&S. Write all but the most egregious violations (repeaters, injury crashes, etc.) under a city ordinance that has a $10,000 fine but no other requirements; if you pay the city promptly, there will be no suspension of your license, no license points, no AA classes to go to. My city has a lot of drunks driving around and says it needs money, so I'm gonna suggest this to the police chief, tomorrow.
 
Last edited:

CaptainR

Junior Member
I wish I knew all about this prior to going to court but let me share with you what happened in the court and how they trapped more people.

So 40 people entered the room of which only less than 10 of them officers showed up. Judge immediately dismissed all the cases that pertaining officer was no show. After that, judge mentioned I will give one last chance to people left in the court to plea guilty and take driving school. He said "let's face it, most of you wanted to try your luck". 3-4 people accepted to plea guilty if their violation code was changed to muni code like the one I had given initially! How did this happen? Well, officers approached them and told them if they plea guilty, they will be willing to ask the judge to change their traffic violation code to muni code so it won't count as a point!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top