Unlawful to Disobey Sign Signal or Traffic Control Device

[coffeebean]

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

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: CA

Officer noted violation 38300 which is Unlawful to Disobey Sign, Signal, or Traffic Control Device, but also noted speed of 81mph on 65mph zone. The officer did that after my GF, who has been out of a job for 1 year, told him she couldn't afford an increase in insurance premiums.

So how different is this violation 38300 compared to a "driving over the speed limit of 65mph" like violation 22349(a)?
Does 38300 really not count on driving record and won't affect insurance premiums?

Bail came at $234.

Since this is not technically a speeding ticket, could she still request discovery, or it wouldn't apply?

Thanks so much

 

[Free_Advice]

Well, now the officer needs to prove 2 things: 1st - you were speeding and 2nd-that you violated a speed limit sign

Discovery is available. The difference is in the fine only ; insurance would be affected in the same manner as a speeding ticket --- call your insurance to see how, if convicted.

Much much testimony is needed to prove both things they need to prove; I would fight it & also check the signage for proper posting as this allows for an affirmative defense.

I have seen many more of this type of behavior by the police for speeding ... they rarely win these cases at trial with defendants that are familiar with defending themselves for speeding tickets

 

[HighwayMan]

insurance would be affected in the same manner as a speeding ticket

And how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Zigner]

Much much testimony is needed to prove both things they need to prove

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it might take 90 seconds of testimony...at least 50% more than other violations, right?

I have seen many more of this type of behavior by the police for speeding ... they rarely win these cases at trial with defendants that are familiar with defending themselves for speeding tickets

Uh-huh

 

[Free_Advice]

And how do you come to that conclusion?

I told him to contact his insurance company to answer such a question ... ya cannot argue with that advice....it was not a conclusion, it was an opinion.

 

[Free_Advice]

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it might take 90 seconds of testimony...at least 50% more than other violations, right?

Uh-huh

Have you been in court as a defendant in one of these cases? I have .. and have been victorious (that means I won). How? Because the cop never could testify to the following: a) where I entered the highway b) if I passed a sign c) and other typical speeding information needed

One can win this type of case ... I have and imagine that most that do contest win. They are very sloppy when it comes to testimony in these types of cases.

 

[Zigner]

Have you been in court as a defendant in one of these cases? I have .. and have been victorious (that means I won). How? Because the cop never could testify to the following: a) where I entered the highway b) if I passed a sign c) and other typical speeding information needed

One can win this type of case ... I have and imagine that most that do contest win. They are very sloppy when it comes to testimony in these types of cases.

Uh-huh

 

[HighwayMan]

I told him to contact his insurance company to answer such a question ... ya cannot argue with that advice....it was not a conclusion, it was an opinion.

Once again, you stated, and I quote:

insurance would be affected in the same manner as a speeding ticket


That was not stated as an opinion. After that you advised him to call his insurance company to see exactly how it would affect him. But you made it clear that the traffic control device equals a speeding ticket for insurance penalties.

 

[coffeebean]

Gentleman, thanks for the response.

But here is some information I got (see below). The violation the officer noted VC 38300 would be a "non-mover" in that case it would not go on record or affect her insurance. So at least the premium wouldn't go up.

But now I am wondering if we can still try to win the case, but she can't appear because we don't live in the area. It would have to be a TBWD.

How do my chances look with a TBWD? Could they actually change the violation to a higher one like "over speed limit" if I do that?

Thanks

Here's the good news: VC 38300 is not even the statute that typically gets charged when an operator disobeys an official traffic control device (normally, it's VC 21461a). In fact, it seems like this officer went pretty far out of the way to cite your GF with a non-moving violation (meaning no points or insurance increases) rather than the usual VC22349a (moving violation) normally charged for speed violations. Look up that VC code at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2011_jcbail.pdf

As far as I can tell, the officer gave your girl a major break. Unless you already received a letter from the court, wait for the paperwork to make sure the charge is officially VC38300. If that's the case, you can pay the fine without worry about any DMV points or insurance increases.

P.S. Good to know that at least some cops out there still have some compassion for the citizenry under the current state of the economy.

 

[Free_Advice]

Uh-huh

Oh plllleeeeese post your transcript of the case. Wait, I know, there is none.

 

[Free_Advice]

Once again, you stated, and I quote:

insurance would be affected in the same manner as a speeding ticket


That was not stated as an opinion. After that you advised him to call his insurance company to see exactly how it would affect him. But you made it clear that the traffic control device equals a speeding ticket for insurance penalties.

You are taking this out of context .. I also said to contact his insurance ... lots of trolling going on this week

 

[Free_Advice]

Gentleman, thanks for the response.

But here is some information I got (see below). The violation the officer noted VC 38300 would be a "non-mover" in that case it would not go on record or affect her insurance. So at least the premium wouldn't go up.

But now I am wondering if we can still try to win the case, but she can't appear because we don't live in the area. It would have to be a TBWD.

How do my chances look with a TBWD? Could they actually change the violation to a higher one like "over speed limit" if I do that?

Thanks

If the driver does not want to go to court then I think the chances of winning by TBWD is nil. No they could not change the charge w/o issuing out an information which they'll never do.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The violation the officer noted VC 38300 would be a "non-mover" in that case it would not go on record or affect her insurance. So at least the premium wouldn't go up.

Here's the good news: VC 38300 is not even the statute that typically gets charged when an operator disobeys an official traffic control device (normally, it's VC 21461a). In fact, it seems like this officer went pretty far out of the way to cite your GF with a non-moving violation (meaning no points or insurance increases) rather than the usual VC22349a (moving violation) normally charged for speed violations. Look up that VC code at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2011_jcbail.pdf

As far as I can tell, the officer gave your girl a major break. Unless you already received a letter from the court, wait for the paperwork to make sure the charge is officially VC38300. If that's the case, you can pay the fine without worry about any DMV points or insurance increases.

P.S. Good to know that at least some cops out there still have some compassion for the citizenry under the current state of the economy.

Yours is not an accurate interpretation of the post you quoted.

For starters, the term "non-mover" is inappropriate to use to describe this violation considering the fact that it is a moving violation that happens to carry zero points.

A better description is a "zero point violation". But even then, that does not mean it won't go on her record; fact is, it does, and will remain there for 3 years from the date of the violation. Additionally, it does not mean that it will have no effect on her insurance, fact is, it might, but not to a degree that a speeding ticket will likely cause!

 

[Free_Advice]

Yours is not an accurate interpretation of the post you quoted.

For starters, the term "non-mover" is inappropriate to use to describe this violation considering the fact that it is a moving violation that happens to carry zero points.

A better description is a "zero point violation". But even then, that does not mean it won't go on her record; fact is, it does, and will remain there for 3 years from the date of the violation. Additionally, it does not mean that it will have no effect on her insurance, fact is, it might, but not to a degree that a speeding ticket will likely cause!

I would recommend, for all traffic tickets and folks wondering what it would do to insurance rates, to call the insurance company .. all are different in what they do; some won't raise your rate for a single traffic violation at all .. its too ins. co. dependent to say.

Many OPs have this query but fail to call their agent and instead ask the forum to guess. And we are all happy to guess

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I would recommend, for all traffic tickets and folks wondering what it would do to insurance rates, to call the insurance company .. all are different in what they do; some won't raise your rate for a single traffic violation at all .. its too ins. co. dependent to say.

I'd agree in principle, and yes, it is worth the try. However, it has been my experience with a number of different insurers over the years, that the agent is unable (or actually unwilling) to give out any specific amount, for fear that underwriting will somehow come up with a different result if/when the time comes for a policy review.

Many OPs have this query but fail to call their agent and instead ask the forum to guess. And we are all happy to guess

Many OPs make a huge issue of an increase in premium, that you'd think that the time to consider it -if its such a big deal- should come BEFORE one gets cited NOT after.

As far as I am concerned, the "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is certainly fitting here as well!