Right turn - CA

[tktadvice]

What is the name of your state? CA
Hi. I received a ticket recently and I am still in the first year of driving.
The officer pulled me over just after 11, ticket times it as 11:05 PM.
The ticket writes:
"21453(A) VC ABSDVIO
Fail to stop for mid
phase red light
*wrn for speed*"
He circled I for infraction on the first line.
In the next section of the ticket he wrote approx speed 45, Max speed 35.

My story, I was on my way home when the police vehicle is coming the opposite direction, he flashed his high beams and U-Turns, and then turns on his red-blue lights...
I slowed down significantly and moved all the way to the right-most lane.
As there was no place to stop, I planned on stopping after the intersection.
The light turned yellow, so I turned right (while still yellow) and found a place to stop.
However, I assume the officer had to turn right on a red (there's only so long a light can be yellow).
So, first off what does "mid phase" red light mean?
Will I be charged for right turn only, or also for speeding and curfew violation?
Do you suggest coming forward as guilty or non-guilty?
I am afraid if I say non-guilty, they may try me for all 3 or even if just one, the punishment may be a lot worse if I am charged. If I say not guilty, I assume it will be the officer's word against mine, and I assume the court values a police officer's word over that of a 17 year old.

What do you guys recommend?

Thank you for any possible advice.
(the sooner the response, the better, my court date is extremely soon)

[FlyingRon]

21453(a) is the "Failed to stop for a red light" rule which essentially said you entered the intersection while the light was red. The text that follows is just an abbreviation of the text of that statute. Mid-phase means that the light was red before you got there (as opposed to it having turned red while you are in the intersection which is not covered under the statute above).


I'm slightly confused. Why did he make the u-turn to pursue you originally. Is it perhaps that you ran some other red light?

[tktadvice]

He told me he originally went after me for speeding.
Then while writing the ticket, he said he's only giving me a ticket for the right turn I made after he was already behind me. And as posted above he wrote "*wrn for speed*"

[JIMinCA]

So, the cop goes to pull you over and as you are yielding, he pops you for going through a yellow (red) light??

1) You will only answer the violation you have been charged with... 21453(a).

2) Hell yes you go plead Not Guilty (I certainly would)

3) You should find out exactly what his position is before you go to trial. You should go to [url]www.helpigotaticket.com[/url] and follow the instructions for filing a request for discovery. If you get the discovery back, you'll have all of the officer's notes pertaining to the incident.

4) You should ignore the posts that are likely to follow which tell you "just pay the ticket" or "What defense, you are guilty!!" There are many people on here that have no intention of helping others, rather they simply want to preach and lecture. Pay them no mind.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

So, the cop goes to pull you over.

1) You will only answer the violation you have been charged with... 21453(a).

2) Hell yes you go plead Not Guilty (I certainly would)

3) You should find out exactly what his position is before you go to trial. You should go to [url]www.helpigotaticket.com[/url] and follow the instructions for filing a request for discovery. If you get the discovery back, you'll have all of the officer's notes pertaining to the incident.

4) You should ignore the posts that are likely to follow which tell you "just pay the ticket" or "What defense, you are guilty!!" There are many people on here that have no intention of helping others, rather they simply want to preach and lecture. Pay them no mind.

Jim -

Our OP already stated that the officer was directly behind him. The officer will testify that the OP entered the intersection on the red.
Sure, the OP can hope that he gets off on a "technicality" (which is what all your suggestions are), but the simple, glaring fact of the matter (in THIS case) is that the OP IS guilty.

Feel free to promote your site though...

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Jim -

Our OP already stated that the officer was directly behind him. The officer will testify that the OP entered the intersection on the red.
Sure, the OP can hope that he gets off on a "technicality" (which is what all your suggestions are), but the simple, glaring fact of the matter (in THIS case) is that the OP IS guilty.

Feel free to promote your site though...

Just as I predicted.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

Just as I predicted.

That was a simple prediction (kind of like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow) beause our OP is guilty. So, your steps of pursuing technicalities may actually help him as he has no REAL defense

[tktadvice]

Keep in mind I am a minor....I think there are different guidelines for the court process, not sure about the "request for discovery"

Zigner, I don't understand how I am guilty, I turned right on a yellow as I needed to pull over for the cop and I wouldn't have made it to the other side of the intersection in a reasonable amount of time.
Again, I turned right on a YELLOW.

here are my questions
1. if I plead not guilty, but then charged, will my punishment be worse?
2. can the judge charge me for past curfew + speeding or only for the turn?

Thanks

[JIMinCA]

As I said, you are only going to have to answer the violation you have been charged with. The charges will NOT change simply because you plead not guilty.

Since you are a minor, you may have to have a parent with you. However, you have all the same rights an adult does.

In your original post, you say that your court date is soon. Understand, that is not your trial date. That is your arraignment date (where you plead not guilty) Your trial date will be set at arraignment. If you call the number on the bottom of your ticket, you can get an extension almost automatically... you just have to ask for it. This is advisable if you intend to request discovery as you have to do that more than 30 days before trial. So, if I were you, I would:

1) request an extension
2) go to [url]www.helpigotaticket.com[/url] and prepare a discovery request
3) Ignore people who just assume you are guilty until proven innocent and look at protections provided under the law as "loopholes"

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

That was a simple prediction (kind of like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow) beause our OP is guilty. So, your steps of pursuing technicalities may actually help him as he has no REAL defense

I have to give you credit when you are right. Guessing that you (or someone like you) would chime in and:

1) assume that the OP is guilty (even though he states he went through the intersection while the light was yellow)
2) tell the OP he has no REAL case
3) criticize me for offering a constructive opinion and
4) suggest that the protections granted to citizens under the US Constitution and State Law are just "technicalities or loopholes"

was in fact a very simple prediction. I guess you can simply refer to me as an observer of the obvious.

People come to this website looking for help, not lectures. Even though you are a frequent poster, I'd challenge you to provide links to three threads where you offered real, constructive opinions that would specifically help a person with a defense without criticizing/lecturing the OP, assuming he is guilty, or criticizing another person trying to help the OP.

Since this forum is about traffic tickets, the bulk of people who come here are looking for advice on a pro se defense. The only thing I have seen you do that is remotely helpful is tell someone they should hire an attorney. While not bad advice, it is so blatantly obvious (like telling someone with lung cancer to stop smoking) that it is of practically no value. I'd really like to see where you have offered any fresh, specific opinions that would help a person prepare a pro se defense.

Show me links to three threads where you were genuinely helpful and I'll be impressed.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

I have to give you credit when you are right. Guessing that you (or someone like you) would chime in and:

1) assume that the OP is guilty (even though he states he went through the intersection while the light was yellow)
2) tell the OP he has no REAL case
3) criticize me for offering a constructive opinion and
4) suggest that the protections granted to citizens under the US Constitution and State Law are just "technicalities or loopholes"

was in fact a very simple prediction. I guess you can simply refer to me as an observer of the obvious.

People come to this website looking for help, not lectures. Even though you are a frequent poster, I'd challenge you to provide links to three threads where you offered real, constructive opinions that would specifically help a person with a defense without criticizing/lecturing the OP, assuming he is guilty, or criticizing another person trying to help the OP.

Since this forum is about traffic tickets, the bulk of people who come here are looking for advice on a pro se defense. The only thing I have seen you do that is remotely helpful is tell someone they should hire an attorney. While not bad advice, it is so blatantly obvious (like telling someone with lung cancer to stop smoking) that it is of practically no value. I'd really like to see where you have offered any fresh, specific opinions that would help a person prepare a pro se defense.

Show me links to three threads where you were genuinely helpful and I'll be impressed.

Did the OP do it? Yes. All the rest is finding ways to avoid the consequences. You admit that your posts are intended to do just that. As I said, feel free to keep plugging your site. I'm done with you.

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Did the OP do it? Yes. All the rest is finding ways to avoid the consequences. You admit that your posts are intended to do just that. As I said, feel free to keep plugging your site. I'm done with you.

Did the OP do what?? Make a turn on a yellow light? That's what he admits to. Anything else is simply your assumption.

I don't have a site. I have no interest in the site I "plug" other than it is a very useful source of information.

And... another obvious prediction. I predicted you would not accept my challenge to post links to three threads where you were actually helpful.

[tktadvice]

Thank you for your advice JIMinCA.
No thank you Zigner for not even reading what I wrote... I assume you just answer all posts without reading.

Unfortunately I had to plead guilty as I would be able to just do traffic school and pay the $400 fine. If I would have plead not guilty, I would have lost the option to do traffic school, thereby getting a point on my record (boost in insurance) and paying the fine if I would've lost. The ref/judge indirectly made it obvious i would lose in court.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by tktadvice

Thank you for your advice JIMinCA.
No thank you Zigner for not even reading what I wrote... I assume you just answer all posts without reading.

I did read what you posted. You posted that you are 100% sure it was yellow. The officer issued the ticket indicating he is 100% sure it was red. I believe (as the court would have) that the officer's expert opinion holds more weight than yours. Furthermore, you have already admitted guilt in court.

[tktadvice]

i was pressured to "admit" guilt as the court obviously values a cop's view over a child's view....which is unfortunate.