"running a red light" the cop made a slight mistake

[MrJohnDough]

I am from Tucson, Arizona. the cop wrote on the ticket that I violated : 28-645(A3A) fail to stop red light.

I looked up and I actually violated 28-645(A3B)
[url]http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/00645.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS[/url]
the booklet with fees says nothing about 28-645(A3B) it only talks about A3A(300$). other cities: glendale and scotsdale mention A3B violation. Tucson booklet does not. the cop made a mistake. I have a witness and a receipt from fast food store which indicate I could only make a right turn. can this ticket be dismissed?

[moburkes]

Will you describe what you received a ticket for and what you are saying that you actually did? Will yu explain how a receipt can prove that you violated the wrong law?

[FlyingRon]

I'm confused? What did you do and what does the witness have to do with things. The ticket itself is just a indication you've been charged. If you go to court, the officer will testify as to what he observed. You can bring your witness to refute anythign he said. Clerical mistakes in the ticket are not going to matter unless the officer is also mistaken in his testimony.

[MrJohnDough]

sorry.
so the cop gave me a ticket for running a red light, like going straight through intersection. this violation is 28-645(A3A) in the document I sited.

but I was making a right turn on red light and did not completely stop. this violation is 28-645(A3B).

so when I go to court I will shows fast food receipt and a witness, saying that I was making a right turn on red. the fast food receipt has time stamp 3 minutes later than traffic tickets time. the location of fast food store is such that I had to make a right turn on intersection to get to the fast food store. this is just to prove what actually happened.

[FlyingRon]

Sorry, but you are MISTAKEN. You violated A3a. A3a says you must stop at red UNLESS you do one of the things in (b) or (c). (a) is the violation, (b) and (c) are exceptions. This is why you only find (a) in the fine schedule. By your own admission you didn't stop so the exception of (b) doesn't let you out of the (a) violation.

Your only defense is that you did comply with (b) in that you:

1. stopped as prescribed,
2. yielded to pedestrians and other traffic,
3. had no sign indicating right-on-red was not allowed.

[MrJohnDough]

other cities have separate a3b and a3c citations. in part 3 a,b and c address completely different cases. I am not saying I made no mistake. It's just I was making a right turn on red. and this is addressed by subdivision A3B. it's not an exception it addressed a different sitiation than A3A. The citation should have said A3B. I wasn't just entering an intersecton to go straight or take a left. I was making a right turn on red which is addressed in subdivision A3B.
so it seems that I actually violated A3B and not A3A.
my defense is that the cop cited me for wrong violation. my defence is not that I did not violate anything.
I have never seen cops stop completely when making a right turn on red. and most people never do it either.

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by MrJohnDough

other cities have separate a3b and a3c citations. in part 3 a,b and c address completely different cases. I am not saying I made no mistake. It's just I was making a right turn on red. and this is addressed by subdivision A3B. it's not an exception it addressed a different sitiation than A3A. The citation should have said A3B. I wasn't just entering an intersecton to go straight or take a left. I was making a right turn on red which is addressed in subdivision A3B.
so it seems that I actually violated A3B and not A3A.
my defense is that the cop cited me for wrong violation. my defence is not that I did not violate anything.
I have never seen cops stop completely when making a right turn on red. and most people never do it either.

It doesn't matter that you were making a right turn, it doesn't matter what other cities do or say, it doesn't matter whether everybody else stops or not, it doesn't matter that you've seen cops not stop. You are mistaken, as people often are. This statute is applicable to your situation, regardless of the fact that you were making a right-hand turn. I've sat in on these cases just like yours before, and every time the defendant starts explaining that he was making a right-hand turn, so it doesn't apply, the judge gets this annoyed look on his face and then essentially calls the defendant stupid.

[MrJohnDough]

first of all are you all cops?
wouldn't it matter if the cop sites me for a murder instead of failure to turn on a turning light? the same mistake here. the law has 3 parts for three different situations. there is a reason they separated the three cases. because there is a difference between flying through red light in straight line or not completely stopping when making a right turn. I did slow down.

[FlyingRon]

Originally Posted by MrJohnDough

first of all are you all cops?
wouldn't it matter if the cop sites me for a murder instead of failure to turn on a turning light? the same mistake here. the law has 3 parts for three different situations. there is a reason they separated the three cases. because there is a difference between flying through red light in straight line or not completely stopping when making a right turn. I did slow down.

No it doesn' t. Try reading it again. Let me simplify it.

It says

(a) You must stop at red lights unless (b) or (c).
(b) You can make a right turn on red after stop if you yield to pedestrians, other vehicles, and there's no sign to the contrary,
(c) You can make a left tern on red after stop...

Running a red light while turning right is a violation of (a) because the "except as provided in (b)" doesn't apply because you didn't comply with ALL OF (b).

If you get up in front of the judge and said YES I RAN THE RED LIGHT BUT IT'S OK BECAUSE I TURNED RIGHT WITHOUT STOPPING FIRST you have confessed to a violation.

[MrJohnDough]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

No it doesn' t. Try reading it again. Let me simplify it.

It says

(a) You must stop at red lights unless (b) or (c).
(b) You can make a right turn on red after stop if you yield to pedestrians, other vehicles, and there's no sign to the contrary,
(c) You can make a left tern on red after stop...

Running a red light while turning right is a violation of (a) because the "except as provided in (b)" doesn't apply because you didn't comply with ALL OF (b).

If you get up in front of the judge and said YES I RAN THE RED LIGHT BUT IT'S OK BECAUSE I TURNED RIGHT WITHOUT STOPPING FIRST you have confessed to a violation.

that's a little biased toward law inforcement. what you are saying is that when I stop at a red light and want to make a right turn, I absolutely must wait for a random pedestrian and some other traffic to yield. then I can make a right turn. sounds very unreal to be true. actually B impliesI have to stop and make sure there are no pedestrians or oncoming traffic before I make a right turn. if there are pedestrians or other traffic I have to yield before I make a right turn.
it says "yield the right-of-way to pedestrians" which means I yield if there are any pedestrians or ,as it goes on in the law, to oncomming traffic.

my defence is that the cop gave me a wrong citation not that I am innocent cinderella.

[The Occultist]

Originally Posted by MrJohnDough

that's a little biased toward law inforcement. what you are saying is that when I stop at a red light and want to make a right turn, I absolutely must wait for a random pedestrian and some other traffic to yield. then I can make a right turn. sounds very unreal to be true. actually B impliesI have to stop and make sure there are no pedestrians or oncoming traffic before I make a right turn. if there are pedestrians or other traffic I have to yield before I make a right turn.
it says "yield the right-of-way to pedestrians" which means I yield if there are any pedestrians or ,as it goes on in the law, to oncomming traffic.

my defence is that the cop gave me a wrong citation not that I am innocent cinderella.

You were cited correctly. You ran a red light. Before making a right-hand turn on red, you must come to a complete stop. You did not. Therefore, you ran a red light. Seriously, how is this not getting through that thick skull of yours?

You know what? Never mind. You obviously know all the legal answers here, despite the overwhelming number of people telling you otherwise. You apparently don't need us. Go to court and see how it all turns out. Good luck!

[MrJohnDough]

Originally Posted by The Occultist

You were cited correctly. You ran a red light. Before making a right-hand turn on red, you must come to a complete stop. You did not. Therefore, you ran a red light. Seriously, how is this not getting through that thick skull of yours?

You know what? Never mind. You obviously know all the legal answers here, despite the overwhelming number of people telling you otherwise. You apparently don't need us. Go to court and see how it all turns out. Good luck!

yes I know "you have to stop at red light". but why did they separate the 3 cases and name all those three cases differently? what you are saying is that if the cop want's me to go to jail for 10 years he is right because I did violate a law. and when you violate a law you have to go to jail.

I know I ran a red light. I am not saying I did not. I am saying I ran the red light under different case than the cop cited me for.

[moburkes]

OP, you're reading WAY more into this law.

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

YOU DIDN'T STOP BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION. PERIOD. YOU ARE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THIS LAW.

(b) The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.



THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU IN THIS SECTION. YOU DIDN'T STOP.

This is basic English.

[MrJohnDough]

Originally Posted by moburkes

OP, you're reading WAY more into this law.

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.

YOU DIDN'T STOP BEFORE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION. PERIOD. YOU ARE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THIS LAW.

(b) The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.



THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU IN THIS SECTION. YOU DIDN'T STOP.

This is basic English.

you forgot to bolden the rest of part A:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
lol. this part applies when you go straight through an intersection or want to make a left turn on 2 way street. how many people wait for green light when they make a right turn. none. becuase there is a part B to this sitation. which allows to make a right turn. if you don't stop when you make a right turn there is a separate part B. which was written specifically for this case. and this case is different than part A.

[moburkes]

Originally Posted by MrJohnDough

you forgot to bolden the rest of part A:

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) of this paragraph, vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone shall stop before entering the intersection and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown.
lol. this part applies when you go straight through an intersection or want to make a left turn on 2 way street. how many people wait for green light when they make a right turn. none. becuase there is a part B to this sitation. which allows to make a right turn. if you don't stop when you make a right turn there is a separate part B. which was written specifically for this case. and this case is different than part A.

No. You're assuming that an "indication" to proceed only means the light turning red again.
And indication to proceed is also STOPPING, looking for traffic coming from your left to your right (oncoming traffic, if you are making a right turn), for example, or a pedestrian that has the right of way, as another example.