"Red Light" CVC21453(a) - Need advise

[acardinale]

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

I was stopped by a P.O. for violation of CVC 21453(a). I was actually 95% through the intersection before the signal changed to red. I was at the opposite side of the intersection when I witnessed crossed traffics signal change to green.

Here is the statement I have so far. Please advise.

-------------------

I was cited for CVC 21453(a) which states that “A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).”

I feel it is also necessary to define CVC 21452(a) which states that “A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.”


I am not guilty of this offense because:

* I did not enter the intersection while a steady circular red signal light was illuminated.
* The violation for which I was cited is clear in stating that it is only illegal to cross the limit line if facing a steady circular red signal alone, and cannot be interpreted otherwise.
* There were no pedestrians, cross traffic, or hazards that had a right-of-way, making it unsafe for me to pass through the intersection; Or, which I would have been required to yield for by law at the time of the alleged incident.
* I did actually enter the intersection while a steady circular yellow signal was illuminated.
* CVC 21452(a) does not state that it is illegal to cross any limit line while the yellow indicator is illuminated; only that the preceding green movement is ending. I feel it is necessary to interpret the yellow indicator as an extension (with caution) of the green movement period, as there is no mention of stopping behind limit lines.

Questions for P.O.

1. What was your position when you witnessed my alleged violation?

2. What led you to believe that I had crossed the limit line while my heading had a steady red indicator illuminated?

3. Did you have a clear line of sight, unobstructed to my signal light?

4. Was your signal light fully green, and your car in forward motion when you witnessed me cross the limit line for my heading?

 

[Free_Advice]

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


Questions for P.O.

1. What was your position when you witnessed my alleged violation?

2. What led you to believe that I had crossed the limit line while my heading had a steady red indicator illuminated?

3. Did you have a clear line of sight, unobstructed to my signal light?

4. Was your signal light fully green, and your car in forward motion when you witnessed me cross the limit line for my heading?

I would assume that the state would have already asked the officer questions 1,2, and 3 before your cross.

This charge is a particularly hard one to win because the officer's testimony will always trump yours.

You could go and look at the timing of the yellow to insure that it conforms with the regulations. Information you would need to make a determination:
time of yellow, speed limit of road, grade of road. If the yellow light time is not suitable then this may be a defense (and one that would not conflict with the officer's testimony too).

Onto you questions you want to ask:

Asking question 3 & 4 directly is not recommended; do not ask questions that will hurt you. What if he says yes the Q.3 ? Then what? See what I mean?

Ask him leading questions that he would answer with a simple yes or no response.. like were you at this spot? Were you stopped? Was my signal light here? etc. Lots of little questions that you can use to show what you want to show to the court. You can control the officer's testimony more via leading questions than open ended questions.

And ask back round questions of the officer & take the questions as far as the judge would allow (and they will say "that's enough" at some point). Ask about his education, his eyesight, his previous employment history, length of current employment, if a vet, if he was honorably discharged, if he ever committed any crime, a crime involving dishonesty etc..ask as many in leading questions as possible. By the time the judge stops you the questions regarding your ticket will be answered with simple yes & no responses .. the officer will not want to sit and banter as, by that time, he'll hate your guts (thats OK ~ nobody likes to answer back round questions). Always start with back round questions.



You should not try to convince the officer to say "now thinking about it, she's not guilty" because that is not going to happen. You are just trying to create enough doubt as to your guilt.

And have your questions written down in some logical order. And if you get an answer that helps you or is vague, do not follow up with a similar question on that subject that allows him to fix his response. Just move onto the next subject issue of your questions.

If I can ask several questions regarding the same point I am trying to bring up then I'll ask the questions at different times and when I get an answer that I feel helps then I don't ask further questions regarding the point.

And prepare well; practice with a friend. Get familiar with objections you can make.

It should take you ~20 hrs of prep time to be fully prepared.

But, as I said, this is still a hard charge to beat.

 

[CdwJava]

I would assume that the state would have already asked the officer questions 1,2, and 3 before your cross.

Actually, the state wouldn't ask any questions of the officer since we do not utilize prosecutors for traffic offenses out here. The judge/commissioner merely asks the officer to begin with his observations.

And ask back round questions of the officer & take the questions as far as the judge would allow (and they will say "that's enough" at some point). Ask about his education, his eyesight, his previous employment history, length of current employment, if a vet, if he was honorably discharged, if he ever committed any crime, a crime involving dishonesty etc..ask as many in leading questions as possible. By the time the judge stops you the questions regarding your ticket will be answered with simple yes & no responses .. the officer will not want to sit and banter as, by that time, he'll hate your guts (thats OK ~ nobody likes to answer back round questions). Always start with back round questions.

If the judge is on his game, he will stop the irrelevant cross examination questions immediately. And, of course, those questions can also come off making the officer look perfect and the paragon of virtue if they were allowed to be asked.

Traffic court tends to be about expediency not in depth interrogations. Heck the questions you want the OP to ask are not even asked in a capital criminal trial!

Effective cross examination questions are those that will clarify the officer's position relative to what he saw. And, of course, one might consider asking the officer whether or not what he saw COULD have been in error.

In this case, if the OP is correct, he was well into the intersection before the light turned. However, if he was in or just across the intersection when the cross traffic turned green, he was either behind slow traffic, or he ran the red light. The timing of the light should allow ample time to pass through the intersection if traveling at or above the speed limit - in most cases. The OP needs to be careful that he does not ask questions that further nail his coffin shut.

Best bet is usually to go with a TBWD (written declaration) and then ask for a trial de novo if the case is lost. That way there are two bites at the apple and two chances the officer will not respond or show up. The problem with that is that if the defendant takes the stand at trial, if he is found guilty many courts will tend to NOT provide traffic school as an option after trial. So, sometimes it is a choice ... guarantee traffic school plus the fine, or, take your chances and hope that if you lose traffic school will still be an option.

 

[Free_Advice]

Traffic court tends to be about expediency not in depth interrogations. Heck the questions you want the OP to ask are not even asked in a capital criminal trial!

I have never had a judge say "you cannot ask the witness if he was ever found guilty of a crime involving dishonesty" or if the witness has a dishonorable discharge or a witnesses educational & employment history. I have had judges stop the back round questions at some point (in every instance in fact because I continue with these questions until the judge does stop me). Once requested to stop asking these series of questions, I do stop & move on with further questioning. See the current Blago trial to see if back round questions cannot be asked .. the first question of him was in respect to dishonesty.

It appears as if you think that a defendant is limited to his questioning regarding inquiries relating the the charge involved ... in respect to asking questions regarding the environment of the place of the infraction & other relevant questions I have found judges to be most forgiving...but having the questions pre-written allows for quick questions & answers so perhaps that is why I can ask between 100-200 questions during my cross examination. Of course a judge can order a defendant to stop at any time ~ just leaves a point for appeal. The point is not to be a pain in the butt but to question until the answers support an acquittal.

The defendant should ask as many questions as they feel is needed to defend themselves.

Expediency is not a requirement in any court. Some judges think so (they want to go and play golf !) and this is unfortunate. The defendant needs to be proactive .. if a line of questioning is seen to be important then I will argue the point with a judge, respectfully of course, but very strongly.

A traffic court defendant will usually have to wait hours (multiple court appearances etc) to get his/her hearing .. so why not spend 10 minutes asking all the questions that are relevant to his/her case. I am not intimidated when I am in court and will not be bullied about. Guilt or innocence is not the main idea of court -- its the state proving your guilt in accordance with the rule of law~ not the defendant proving his/her innocence. Even if I am guilty & know it; I still proffer a vigorous defense to show that the state has not established their burden.

I assume nothing during trial, and I ask many questions ..

 

[CdwJava]

You're not in CA, are you?

Many of the questions you might want to ask are outside the scope of what is generally permitted out here. Your attempt to delve into unrelated Brady issues would be quashed pretty quickly.

In all my years in law enforcement I have never heard those questions being asked in ANY trial, nor am I ever likely to. Your state may have different rules.

 

[Free_Advice]

In all my years in law enforcement I have never heard those questions being asked in ANY trial, nor am I ever likely to.

How can you know if you never heard ... just saying ..

read the blago trial transcripts; its the first question posed to him -- read the transcript just for the sheer laugher it will evoke; he gives the impression that he is mentally retarded or at least very stupid

You seem to be personally offended by my posts ... I really don't know if the police officer giving testimony is not a convicted felon ~ so I ask ... this would relate to his testimony or veracity, would it not?

You should not be offended; I have nothing against you personally or any other police officer. But once giving testimony against me you can expect me to hit you with hard questions on the witness stand. Its our system.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Free_Advice, you ignored a pretty specific and pertinent question:

You're not in CA, are you?

Without an answer to that, it would be safe to assume that your lack of familiarity with court procedures is sufficient to render your Free Advice as less than beneficial (I didn't want to say "worthless"). No disrespect intended.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I was at the opposite side of the intersection when I witnessed crossed traffics signal change to green.

This statement alone, leads me to suspect that you entered the intersection a bit later than when you think you did. Why?

Most traffic signals utilize a "red clearance phase" where a red indication is shown to traffic in all directions. Whether such a phase is used for this particular intersection or not, I don't know... Though anyone who is familiar with that basic traffic engineering principle would not consider your statement above as sufficient to raise any doubt upon the officer's version that you entered on red.

Also, here is a Public Service Announcement that is more of a general comment not specific to this particular intersection: To those of you reading this who are opposed to red light cameras, this situation, in my opinion, is ONLY ONE PERFECT reason why red light cameras should be sought after rather than condemned by the general public, if only for the fact that they remove any doubt as to when the vehicle crossed the limit line.

So to anyone who gets convicted of a red light camera violation, only to come back and claim "the officer lied and the judge still wouldn't believe me", my answer is "DEAL WITH IT"!!!

 

[demurringdude]

So to anyone who gets convicted of a red light camera violation, only to come back and claim "the officer lied and the judge still wouldn't believe me", my answer is "DEAL WITH IT"!!!

Has anyone ever done that?

 

[demurringdude]

Here is the statement I have so far. Please advise.

-------------------
I feel it is necessary to interpret the yellow indicator as an extension (with caution) of the green movement period, as there is no mention of stopping behind limit lines.

What are you planning to do with this statement? Send it in as part of a TBWD?

There are several weaknesses with it. I would completely drop your last bullet point, quoted above. The court won't be interested in your feelings about what the law ought to be.

I would also drop the bullet point about there being no pedestrians etc. You aren't charged with not giving way to them, so you don't need to bring it up.

I suspect from what you have written so far that you are not going to be effective in court, and I would advise you to do a TBWD and get that looked at by others here before you submit it.

 

[CdwJava]

How can you know if you never heard ... just saying ..

Because I have been at this for two decades, know a great many officers, and continuously review procedures and state law with regards to law enforcement and the questions you describe are not generally permitted here without foundation.

You seem to be personally offended by my posts ... I really don't know if the police officer giving testimony is not a convicted felon ~ so I ask ... this would relate to his testimony or veracity, would it not?

That's easy ... if he were a convicted felon, he could not be a peace officer under state or federal law. Period.

You should not be offended;

I'm not.

I have nothing against you personally or any other police officer. But once giving testimony against me you can expect me to hit you with hard questions on the witness stand. Its our system.

Those wouldn't be "hard" questions, they would simply be largely irrelevant. Most the questions you ask, if answered "yes" (such as theft and dishonesty) would have disqualified the officer for employment, anyway ... unless it was so far in their youth as to be irrelevant).

 

[Free_Advice]

That's easy ... if he were a convicted felon, he could not be a peace officer under state or federal law. Period.

A felon cannot be the mayor of DC either but there was one recently. So, I never assume an officer is of good moral character (heck, he might be but I do not know that) until I question.

Its an adversarial process .. I have flustered some officers on the stand asking them these types of questions but most just answer w/o being bothered by it; I think they understand the reasons being the questions ... and if not, oh well.

And you do get to cross examine the officer. So I always do so vigorously. And while a traffic case is not required to have a DA, some counties still do.

 

[Silverplum]

Given your posts in this thread, I guess we can assume that you are, or were, an attorney.

A felon cannot be the mayor of DC either but there was one recently. So, I never assume an officer is of good moral character (heck, he might be but I do not know that) until I question.

Its an adversarial process .. I have flustered some officers on the stand asking them these types of questions but most just answer w/o being bothered by it; I think they understand the reasons being the questions ... and if not, oh well.

And you do get to cross examine the officer. So I always do so vigorously. And while a traffic case is not required to have a DA, some counties still do.

 

[Zigner]

A felon cannot be the mayor of DC either but there was one recently. So, I never assume an officer is of good moral character (heck, he might be but I do not know that) until I question.

Its an adversarial process .. I have flustered some officers on the stand asking them these types of questions but most just answer w/o being bothered by it; I think they understand the reasons being the questions ... and if not, oh well.

And you do get to cross examine the officer. So I always do so vigorously. And while a traffic case is not required to have a DA, some counties still do.

One more time: ARE YOU FROM CALIFORNIA?

 

[FlyingRon]

A felon cannot be the mayor of DC either but there was one recently. So, I never assume an officer is of good moral character (heck, he might be but I do not know that) until I question.

I presume you are referring to Marion Barry. If so, the reason he could still hold public office is he wasn't convicted of any felony. While he was charged with multiple felonies, all he was convicted on was a misdemeanor possession charge. The other charges resulted in a hung jury and never retried.