Obey School Crossing Guard?

[bgh]

My girlfriend got cited yesterday morning in California (LA County) for a "2815" - failure to obey a school crossing guard. She says (I was not in the car) that the crossing guard was returning to the curb, was no more than a couple steps away from it and had his "stop" sign down. There was nobody else in the crosswalk. It does sound like a clear cut crosswalk violation, but that's not what she was cited for. It doesn't sound like she was disobeying a crossing guard's instruction since his sign was down and he wasn't escorting anyone across the intersection. Anyone have an opinion on if she can fight this and win? Thanks.

 

[CourtClerk]

She probably should fight it. Not because she's going to win, but because there's no harm in doing it. No traffic school allowed for 2815vc. anyway, so if she loses, she's in the same position as she would be if just paid it.

 

[CdwJava]

Here is the section cited:

CVC 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.​

Perhaps she can plead guilty to the crosswalk violation ... or, she might be able to beat the charge altogether if the crossing guard or officer does not show.

Pursuant to the 2007 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule CVC 2815 is a one-point violation with a fine and fees recommended to be at $190 ... CourtClerk, why do you say there is no traffic school for this? I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be.

CVC 21950(a) or (c) is a one-point violation with a recommended fine and fee level of $146.

- Carl

 

[CourtClerk]

CourtClerk, why do you say there is no traffic school for this? I don't see any reason why there wouldn't be.

- Carl

A few years ago, we received one of those wonderful DMV update memos. 2815 and 2818 are mandatory points. No TS for those 2 violations... per our friends in Sacramento.

 

[bgh]

Thank you both for your input. Can they change the charge at the court date? They only cited her for the school crossing guard infraction, so could they nail her for a crosswalk violation instead if she shows up in court to plead her case? That would seem unfair but wouldn't really surprise me I guess...

Thanks!

 

[CdwJava]

A few years ago, we received one of those wonderful DMV update memos. 2815 and 2818 are mandatory points. No TS for those 2 violations... per our friends in Sacramento.

Interesting.

Too many code sections, too little time (or desire) to search them for these administrative sections.

My desk has far too many DMV memos to flit through. I wish they'd put them all on-line!

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you both for your input. Can they change the charge at the court date? They only cited her for the school crossing guard infraction, so could they nail her for a crosswalk violation instead if she shows up in court to plead her case? That would seem unfair but wouldn't really surprise me I guess...

Thanks!

They should not be permitted to change the violation on the court date. However, traffic court "judges" are not always judges and are often assigned 'pro tem' - attorneys or retired judges assigned to hear traffic matters. Sometimes these 'judges' play a little loose with the rules. I suspect she could object to such a last minute amendment of the charge as it would not giveher proper notifice so that she could defend herself.

- Carl