Questionable ticket, bad description - California

[Stuntman]

What is the name of your state? California

I received a ticket this morning for "Passing in the shoulder".. I was in a situation where two lanes were merging into one lane and the car next to me was not letting me in. My choices were to either hit the brakes hard and hope a car behind me in that lane would let me merge in, or to shoot ahead of the car ahead of the car next to me to get into that lane. I chose to speed up (I was cited while going 40mph in a 55mph zone) and get ahead of the car that was in front of the car next to me (The car that wouldn't let me in was tailgating the car in front of it.. which is why I couldn't squeeze in). The lane ended quickly and before I was fully in front of the car I was getting in front of.. so, yes, two of my tires, those on the passenger side, did go over the white line that seperates the "Road" from the "Shoulder" though I was never in the dirt or even close to it.

Furthermore the office cited the place of the violation as a non-existing place.. he states on the ticket that it occured on Interstate 15 and Scott Rd... there is no Interstate 15 and Scott Rd intersection.. I was on Highway 79 and Scott Road, Interstate 15 is 10 miles from there and doesn't connect with Scott Road at all!

So I wonder.. can I get off for the mere fact that where the officer says the violation occured is a non-existing location? Or am I better off explaining that I chose to pass partially into the shoulder as a way to get into the merged lane and avoid an even uglier situation.. or, do I just pay the bill and go to traffic school?

Thanks!!!!!!!

[CdwJava]

The location might be an issue - especially if the officer goes to court and testifies to his being on I-15 at Scott Rd.

The violation appears to be good - you were on the shoulder. Technically, you were obligated to yield to the traffic having the lane, so speeding up was not technically the best choice. That argument MIGHT win an emotional appeal from the judge or 'pro tem', but it wouldn't win a legal argument.

You could plead not guilty and go to court at a later date for trial. If the officer doesn't show you might win with a dismissal for lack of prosecution. If he does show, request traffic school.

Most counties will offer traffic school once you are in the courtroom but before anyone takes the stand in their defense. The court will usually advise everyone that traffic school may not be an option if they go to trial and lose.

- Carl

[Stuntman]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

The location might be an issue - especially if the officer goes to court and testifies to his being on I-15 at Scott Rd.

The violation appears to be good -

- Carl

Thanks for the reply Carl. So if I understand you, I could plead Not Guilty at the initial court date (the officer isn't present at the initial court date is he?). At what point would I point out the fact that the officer sited me at a location that doesn't exist? Can I point out that if he wasn't clear where he was, he may not have gotten some of the other "Facts" correct too? I don't know that I was in the shoulder, I was trying to merge into the single lane from a lane that has a short merge lane. I wasn't driving at dangerous speeds (he cites 40 in a 55) as we had just come from a stop light.

I don't generally fight a ticket, as I figure I'm guilty a dozen times a day of something and don't get caught, but this one seems ticky tack and the officer was unnecessarily gruff and rude to me as I did my best to be compliant...

Somebody I know told me that generally if you plead Not Guilty at the initial hearing that a DA's assistant will then come talk to you to find out why you are pleading Not Guilty and they will decide then and there whether it is in THEIR best interest to proceed.. is that true?

Thanks again!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Stuntman

Thanks for the reply Carl. So if I understand you, I could plead Not Guilty at the initial court date (the officer isn't present at the initial court date is he?).

Correct. The first hearing is the arraignment. The officer won't be there.

Note that you CAN plead "not guilty" ... I am not a lawyer and am not providing legal advice - your decision is yours to make alone and you should research any and all the ramifications of your decisions prior to your appearance.

At what point would I point out the fact that the officer sited me at a location that doesn't exist?

You likely won't have that chance until trial. This is where it could get sticky ... you would have to take the stand to challenge this issue. If you take the stand, and the court allows the officer to amend his citation (or he corrects the location in his testimony with the court's acquiescence), then you could lose the opportunity for traffic school if found guilty.

Can I point out that if he wasn't clear where he was, he may not have gotten some of the other "Facts" correct too?

You can try. But you might also have to point out what other "facts" he got incorrect.

The courts here tend to cut the officers a little slack for errors like that. However, an error of location can be a jurisdictional one and some judges and pro tems may toss the cite out upon such testimony.

I don't know that I was in the shoulder, I was trying to merge into the single lane from a lane that has a short merge lane. I wasn't driving at dangerous speeds (he cites 40 in a 55) as we had just come from a stop light.

Certainly arguable. But your knowledge of the shoulder's location is not necessarily relevant.

Somebody I know told me that generally if you plead Not Guilty at the initial hearing that a DA's assistant will then come talk to you to find out why you are pleading Not Guilty and they will decide then and there whether it is in THEIR best interest to proceed.. is that true?

It depends on the county. In my small county that may be true. In larger ones it probably is not true.

- Carl

[lwpat]

You likely won't have that chance until trial. This is where it could get sticky ... you would have to take the stand to challenge this issue. If you take the stand, and the court allows the officer to amend his citation (or he corrects the location in his testimony with the court's acquiescence), then you could lose the opportunity for traffic school if found guilty.

Carl is right about this. If you decide to go this route the officer would have to testify to the incorrect location either on direct or cross. Then you would have to be sure that the state rests. This prevents them from ammending the ticket. Then you would have to have someone testify that that location does not exist along with a certified county map. If you just question him about it he would have the opportunity to ammend the ticket. Then you would have to make a motion for dismissal.

Lot of time and effort so most people just take traffic school.

[Stuntman]

Hmm.. bummer..

So when I go into court and plead guilty or not guilty, I take it I am not pleading to the violation that I am ticketed for? My ticket says I passed on the shoulder at intersection X.. In fact, I did not... I know it's just a technical error on the part of the officer, but I actually am not guilty of the violation I am ticketed for.. of course if the judge asks for details and the officer clarifies the location (what are the chances he would remember the details?? Unless he wrote notes someplace I don't have access to) I'd be out of luck..

But, technically, am I Not Guilty of the violation that I am charged with (At least on the ticket I was handed)??

If I understand you both correctly, I could claim rightly Not Guilty and have it go to trial, at which point the cop could then ammend his ticket and I'd be out of luck, wasted a lot of time and possibly be denied the option for traffic school? I would be banking on either the officer not showing up, not remembering the correct location of the incident or resting without correcting his error? I really don't have hundreds of dollars to spare to just go to traffic school, so if I have a shot here, I'd like to take it... if I'm just grasping, I'll accept that and pay the fine.. it is only 1 point on my record (I think) and that shouldn't impact my insurance.. it would be the only mark on my record...