+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
  1. #1
    lcjcw is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    1

    TX - right turn at red light

    What is the name of your state?

    What is the name of your state? TX

    I got a ticket for turning right at a red light in Dallas, TX. I didn't stop completely so I know I'm wrong there. The confusion for me is that the officer said I can't run a red light no matter which direction I was going. He didn't mention anything about my stop completely or not. I specifically asked if I could treat the red light as a stop sign when there's no other traffic. He said NO. The message is "you can't turn right at red light". I double checked that the particular intersection is not a "no turn right at red" place.

    The voilation on the ticket is "RED RAN RED LIGHT 2119". Could anyone let me know if the 2119 is a code for something or just a number?

    I read the instruction on the ticket and visited the court website. I'm still not sure if I'm approved to take the safety class, to which I'm qualified, do I still need to pay the full amount of the ticket.

    Thanks.
  2. #2
    JETX is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Somnambulist University
    Posts
    40,807
    Quote Originally Posted by lcjcw View Post
    The voilation on the ticket is "RED RAN RED LIGHT 2119". Could anyone let me know if the 2119 is a code for something or just a number?
    I have no idea what the '2119' is. Here is the specific statute violation from the Texas Transportation Code:

    544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL.
    (d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may:
    (1) turn right; or
    (2) turn left, if the intersecting streets are both one-way streets and a left turn is permissible.

    (e) An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal is warned by that signal that:
    (1) movement authorized by a green signal is being terminated; or
    (2) a red signal is to be given.

    (f) The Texas Transportation Commission, a municipal authority, or the commissioners court of a county may prohibit within the entity's jurisdiction a turn by an operator of a vehicle facing a steady red signal by posting notice at the intersection that the turn is prohibited.

    do I still need to pay the full amount of the ticket.
    Until/unless the court orders otherwise, yes.
  3. #3
    cepe10 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    MD, WV - formerly WA, UT, AL, MS and OR
    Posts
    563
    Jetx is correct and the LEO is incorrect. I'm not even sure why he would attempt to say that. You may turn right at a red light after yielding.

    You may want to take a photo of the intersection showing clearly there is not a "no turn on red" sign. Along with the code already provided I think that would be well worth your time.
  4. #4
    ceara19 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,059
    Quote Originally Posted by cepe10 View Post
    Jetx is correct and the LEO is incorrect. I'm not even sure why he would attempt to say that. You may turn right at a red light after yielding.

    You may want to take a photo of the intersection showing clearly there is not a "no turn on red" sign. Along with the code already provided I think that would be well worth your time.
    Read the code again. You can turn right on red after STOPPING and yielding to pedestrians. The OP admitted to NOT coming to a complete stop, so the lack of a "no right on red" sign is irrelevant.
  5. #5
    trieroffact is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by ceara19 View Post
    Read the code again. You can turn right on red after STOPPING and yielding to pedestrians. The OP admitted to NOT coming to a complete stop, so the lack of a "no right on red" sign is irrelevant.
    Lady, that is what was already clearly said - yeild condition... OP was charged with the crime of running a red light not failing to stop for a red light at a right turn. Also, if you read the OP questioned the officer directly about the exact situation and LEO was incorrectly of the opinion that one can never proceed right against a red light....and did not mention anything about coming to a complete stop....thus the false charge... As LEO is unaware of the traffic law all OP has to do is show the statute and that it was lawful to turn right against red.

    Op admitting anything on this forum is irrelevant, In the US legal system the burden of proof lies with the state and the accuser. Defendants are not required to aid the prosecution in meeting the burden of proof.

    Beyond that in court OP as the accused has the right not to testify against himself but can simply present the case facts and question the witness (LEO).
  6. #6
    BelizeBreeze is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    "Harvey and Me"
    Posts
    25,173
    Get your "Tier of Facts" correct. Whether or not the LEO knows the law is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The poster clearly stated they did NOT stop at the signal before proceeding to turn right.

    The ticket is valid. Case closed.
  7. #7
    WindyAruba Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze View Post
    Get your "Tier of Facts" correct. Whether or not the LEO knows the law is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The poster clearly stated they did NOT stop at the signal before proceeding to turn right. The ticket is valid. Case closed.
    Not a well thought out or coherent argument prosecutor.

    You need to provide a specific charge and then back up the specific charge.

    The huge flaw in your argument is that the LEO never mentioned anything about not making a complete stop - only that one can never proceed through a red light...which is factually incorrect as JETX pointed out by posting the statute in question.

    You harem of uninformed, hystercial women may need a new champion

    You may want to peruse the texas legal web if you wish to provide informed, intelligent discussion.


    [url]http://www.texaslegalweb.com/index.php?page=article&id=117[/url]
  8. #8
    BelizeBreeze is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    "Harvey and Me"
    Posts
    25,173
    Quote Originally Posted by WindyAruba View Post
    Not a well thought out or coherent argument prosecutor.

    You need to provide a specific charge and then back up the specific charge.

    The huge flaw in your argument is that the LEO never mentioned anything about not making a complete stop - only that one can never proceed through a red light...which is factually incorrect as JETX pointed out by posting the statute in question.

    You harem of uninformed, hystercial women may need a new champion

    You may want to peruse the texas legal web if you wish to provide informed, intelligent discussion.


    [url]http://www.texaslegalweb.com/index.php?page=article&id=117[/url]
    O.K. once more for the terminally ignorant.

    Fact one: JET NEVER said a driver can or cannot proceed through a red light. He simply quoted the statute.

    Fact two: The poster stated they never came to a complete stop.

    Fact three: the LEO's knowledge of a fact not relevant to the issue of the basis for the citation is itself, irrelevant.

    Fact four: The poster received a citation for running a red light, a fact they readily admitted.

    Fact five: Nowhere in the Texas traffic code is there a requirement for the officer to discourse on the reason for the citation.

    What is so hard to understand?
  9. #9
    trieroffact is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    129
    You are wrong again the defendant does have the right to be notified of the charges against him...You may want to brush up on US law.

    Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness". As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction.

    Again for the terminally retarded prosecutors out there - Running red light is incorrect charge since the OP may proceed against red on right turn if no sign is present.

    OP WAS NOT CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO MAKE COMPLETE STOP!!!
  10. #10
    BelizeBreeze is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    "Harvey and Me"
    Posts
    25,173
    Quote Originally Posted by trieroffact View Post
    You are wrong again the defendant does have the right to be notified of the charges against him...You may want to brush up on US law.
    By the court, unless you have a specific texas statute which requires the officer to inform the violator of the specific charge verbally. Which was the issue here. I assure you, I'm reading the post correctly. Maybe you'd like to borrow my law book????
    Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness". As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings involving him, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction.
    Thank you for the legal process 101 class. But you're about 24 years too late. And it's still irrelevant to this post.

    Again for the terminally retarded prosecutors out there - Running red light is incorrect charge since the OP may proceed against red on right turn if no sign is present.
    Really? So basically you're saying that it's just fine to NOT come to a complete stop before proceeding to turn right? I'd like you to justify THAT with the statute then.
    OP WAS NOT CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO MAKE COMPLETE STOP!!!
    no, they were charged with running a red light, which is the correct charge.
  11. #11
    trieroffact is offline Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    129
    Sorry Prosecutor no matter how you want to revamp the US legal system to you own personal whims, the Constituition and Fourteenth Amendment are still relevant as well as the Texas Constituion- Sorry your correspondence degree and harem of hysterical women did not provide you with that info...

    Beyond that

    "RED RAN RED LIGHT 2119"

    Is not even a correct reference to any Texas or US law so the LEO can't even provide a coherent charge - Hmmm, no wonder you want to defend his incompetance so much...
  12. #12
    BelizeBreeze is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    "Harvey and Me"
    Posts
    25,173
    Quote Originally Posted by trieroffact View Post
    Sorry Prosecutor no matter how you want to revamp the US legal system to you own personal whims, the Constituition and Fourteenth Amendment are still relevant as well as the Texas Constituion- Sorry your correspondence degree and harem of hysterical women did not provide you with that info...

    Beyond that

    "RED RAN RED LIGHT 2119"

    Is not even a correct reference to any Texas or US law so the LEO can't even provide a coherent charge - Hmmm, no wonder you want to defend his incompetance so much...
    As I said earlier, provide any state of texas statute which requires the LEO to verbally inform the offender of the charges against them.

    And provide any statute requiring the LEO to spefically charge the offender with ONLY one violation and in the present case, ONLY the failure to come to a complete stop.

    I'll be waiting.
  13. #13
    Zigner is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    51,550
    Quote Originally Posted by trieroffact View Post
    You are wrong again the defendant does have the right to be notified of the charges against him...You may want to brush up on US law.
    OP WAS notified - it's called a citation

    Additionally, the officer WAS correct in his verbal description. Per OP's post, officer told him that he "...can't run a red light no matter which direction I was going." Are you saying that is somehow incorrect???
    Amazing
  14. #14
    CdwJava is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    27,085
    In TX they commonly write the name or nature of the violation on citations and not the code section ... odd, but that is the way it works in some states. 2119 could be a reference to the time (9:19 PM), the ID number of the light or intersection, or maybe even the officer's ID.

    Additionally, unless TX has two separate violations - one for blowing a red light, and one for failing to stop prior to turning right on a red light, the section would likely be the same. It does NOT invalidate the citation or the case against the OP if the officer incorrectly represented the exceptions to the requirement to stop to the OP. If this were a loophole I suspect it would have been found long ago, and officers throughout TX would have long ago been advised not to speak to drivers about their violation at all.

    If the OP wants to raise the officer's discussion in court as evidence of his innocence he can certainly do so. Judge's need a good chuckle like anyone else.

    - Carl
    A Nor Cal Cop Sergeant

    "Make mine a double mocha ...
    And a croissant!"

    Seek justice,
    Love mercy,
    Walk humbly with your God

    -- Courageous, by Casting Crowns ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkM-gDcmJeM
  15. #15
    sgtdanmurphy is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zigner View Post
    OP WAS notified - it's called a citation

    Additionally, the officer WAS correct in his verbal description. Per OP's post, officer told him that he "...can't run a red light no matter which direction I was going." Are you saying that is somehow incorrect???
    Amazing
    Can a person treat the red light as a stop sign when there's no other traffic?

    Correct Answer: YES, when turning right.

    544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL.
    (d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may:
    (1) turn right; or

    For about the 10th time the LEO makes no mention of a complete stop or not - he is saying point blank that one can never proceed though a red light ever - we all know that this is completely incorrect. But for the prosecutors out there please keep trying to cloud the issue. I'm not sure why you folks are here other than you think this is the judge judy show where you can invent the law to your liking

Similar Threads

  1. Red Light Camera - Failure to Stop at Red Light when turn right
    By RedLightTicket in forum Speeding and Other Moving Violations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 08:31 PM
  2. Crosswalk and right only turn on red light
    By CaliDriver in forum Speeding and Other Moving Violations
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 12:04 AM
  3. Illegal U-turn on red light
    By chris92069 in forum Auto Accidents and Vehicle Claims
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2006, 03:19 PM
  4. Running red light/No turn on red
    By wimsportav in forum Speeding and Other Moving Violations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-18-2004, 03:03 PM
  5. right turn on red light
    By SSH1325 in forum Speeding and Other Moving Violations
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-17-2000, 07:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

© 1995-2012 Advice Company, All Rights Reserved

FreeAdvice® has been providing millions of consumers with outstanding advice, free, since 1995. While not a substitute for personal advice from a licensed professional, it is available AS IS, subject to our Disclaimer and Terms & Conditions Of Use.