Violations on ticket and notice don't match

[josh12398]

California

I was ticketed in West Los Angeles for an infraction, failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. This was an honest mistake, the person was just beginning to cross from the far side of a five lane street and I just didn't see her in time to stop.

My violation is listed on the ticket as 21950(a), Failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

I have now received the notice letter from the LA Superior Court and they have misread the ticketing officer's handwriting. They are charging me with violation 21450(a) which apparently has something to do with temporary traffic markers.

What is the smart thing to do in this situation? Should I go to court and try to get the ticket dismissed, or perhaps try to have the notice corrected?

The ticketed violation is for a $35 fine. The letter lists a bail of $202.00. Can anyone lead me in the right direction? Thank you very much.

 

[JIMinCA]

The charge on the ticket counts. However, it may be prudent to call to find out if someone didn't screw up your fine also.

 

[josh12398]

You can't really tell what the officer wrote on the ticket

As I continue to look at the ticket and the notice letter, what stands out is that the officer's handwriting makes the '9' in the 21950(a) vehicle code look like either a '4' or a '9'. He describes my infraction as failing to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk. This infraction has a fine of $35 as listed in the official vehicle code .pdf. They are charging me with an infraction of 21450(a) which is listed as a rule defining the appearance of road signage. The bail for this is $202. Can anyone advise me what to do? There is no option for 'correcting' a notice letter given in the phone system. I'm at a loss as to what to do. Can it be successfully dismissed in court because of the screw up?

Thank you to everyone.

 

[CdwJava]

CVC 21950(a) should have a fine and fees of about $146 plus a point against your license.

CVC 21450 is a non-punitive section:

21450. Whenever traffic is controlled by official traffic control
signals showing different colored lights, color-lighted arrows, or
color-lighted bicycle symbols, successively, one at a time, or in
combination, only the colors green, yellow, and red shall be used,
except for pedestrian control signals, and those lights shall
indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles, operators of bicycles, and
pedestrians as provided in this chapter.​

Someone screwed up at the court.

I suspect it shall be the court's record you will be held accountable for at court, but, it is the citation that is the charging instrument. I would go ahead with the expectation that you will have to contest the 21950, but hope that the court looks at the 21450 and dismisses it because it is not applicable. Perhaps try it via TBWD at first and provide a copy of the section for reference arguing you cannot be guilty of that offense. Maybe you can forestall all of this.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Carl,

That was an outstanding post! I gave up that argument way too quickly, but your perspective clears it up as being viable. I think you have swayed me.

 

[CdwJava]

Carl,

That was an outstanding post! I gave up that argument way too quickly, but your perspective clears it up as being viable. I think you have swayed me.

I'm sorry ... delayed response ... I had to pick myself up off the floor and mop up my coffee ...

- Carl

 

[josh12398]

Please excuse me but I'm only more confused now

Thanks for all your attention and I really appreciate your thoughts. I guess I'm a bit dense but this whole thread just confuses me more. I've been charged with 21450a on a notice that refers to the citation number of the ticket. As you mentioned, the listed code isn't even a chargeable offense, yet I'm looking at a bail of $202! How did they come up with that and why would they if it isn't chargeable?

If I go for TBWD and support it with photos that show a typical unimproved crosswalk in West LA, I can say that there aren't any signs or other markers at all, in reference to the 21450a. However, what is the point of that? The code listed isn't chargeable in the first place and has nothing to do with crosswalks at all.

Perhaps the thing to do is approach the TBWD with the statement that I've been charged with something that makes no sense because its not chargeable and leave it at that. Is this what you are recommending? What am I risking by doing that?

I haven't had a ticket since 1994 and have a completely unremarkable driving record. If this process had worked the way it was supposed to, I would have paid the fine and gone to traffic school to avoid the point on my license.

Obviously they can't charge me for an unchargeable code, but if they do something with the TBWD other than dismiss the citation, for instance alter it to 21950a, have I lost the ability to go to traffic school? How could I word the declaration to avoid further problems? If you look at the ticket, you can't tell clearly which number the officer wrote down, but he does describe me failing to yield. Its the notice that lists it definitively as 21450a, the unchargeable code. Will they actually look at the ticket, or just the computer record of the notice?

Again, thanks for all your attention. I feel like I'm caught in the cogs of the system and will be in trouble no matter what I do! I hope I'm wrong about that.

 

[JIMinCA]

I'm sorry ... delayed response ... I had to pick myself up off the floor and mop up my coffee ...

- Carl

Just because you and I disagree frequently, doesn't mean that I don't hold you in very high regard. You have always been reasonable (not always right) in your perspectives, and I respect that. Unlike some wacky posters here, I do not carry personal grudges and use OP's threads to carry out personal vendettas.

 

[CdwJava]

Just because you and I disagree frequently, doesn't mean that I don't hold you in very high regard. You have always been reasonable (not always right) in your perspectives, and I respect that. Unlike some wacky posters here, I do not carry personal grudges and use OP's threads to carry out personal vendettas.

I can say the same about you, Jim. It is not the info I oppose so much as the tone in which it is sometimes provided.

I suppose it is the "bedside manner", not so much the information you provide, that rubs some people the wrong way.

Thanks.

 

[JIMinCA]

I can say the same about you, Jim. It is not the info I oppose so much as the tone in which it is sometimes provided.

I suppose it is the "bedside manner", not so much the information you provide, that rubs some people the wrong way.

Thanks.

Every time I look at the intent of this website, I see that it is a place for people to come get help of a legal nature. It is not a dispensery of bedside manners. I have a long list of OPs who have sent me much gratitude for the legal help I have provided. Not one of them has ever said, "while you may be legally correct, I wish your 'bedside manner' was better". However, the other posters on here may have issue with me.... but it is not them that I am trying to help.

 

[CdwJava]

Every time I look at the intent of this website, I see that it is a place for people to come get help of a legal nature. It is not a dispensery of bedside manners. I have a long list of OPs who have sent me much gratitude for the legal help I have provided. Not one of them has ever said, "while you may be legally correct, I wish your 'bedside manner' was better". However, the other posters on here may have issue with me.... but it is not them that I am trying to help.

I have gotten the same responses, Jim - as have many others here. Yet I have managed to do so without seriously ruffling feathers. One can be helpful without coming across arrogant or as the possessor of absolute knowledge.

You are very knowledgeable on certain traffic issues, certainly, but that does not mean you are always correct or that yours is the ONLY legal interpretation. If it were that plain, and that simple, there would be no need for a court.

I simply suggest that rather than raising your blood pressure taking so many people to task, you stick to presenting the information in a reasoned and less confrontational manner.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Thanks for the advice, but I don't live my life in such a way as to compromise principle in order to avoid controversy. Furthermore, I think I have seen you post in terms of "absolutes" on a frequent basis.... even when the law says you are wrong. But, that wasn't my point. My point was that I don't argue simply for the sake of arguing and I respect a resonable opinion regardless of its source.

I'm glad you're looking out for me, but I think I'll just continue calling a spade a spade.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm glad you're looking out for me, but I think I'll just continue calling a spade a spade.

Sometimes that perception may not be correct, Jim. Because you think something is so does not make it so. And that's the point, You leave little to no room for anyone to hold a different opinion even going so far as to disparage them for daring to disagree with you, as if your interpretation is sacred and not subject to another view.

Sorry, Jim, but even in the law there are different ways to look at things. This is not a list for "The World According to Jim" any more than it is "The World According to Carl". You are not right because you say you are right, and the legal points you occasionally brandish are but one interpretation of a particular issue and, as with any legal points and authorities, are subject to counter argument. Disagreeing with you is not a sin, Jim, yet you spend a good deal of time vehemently attacking those whose greatest transgression is to dare to disagree with your interpretation of a section or case law. When one resorts to insults or name calling it diminishes whatever credibility the argument may have once had.

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge on speed issue, and for related elements of that law. But your continued vitriol (and even the vitriol of other posters) does no one any favors. It distracts from a reasoned discussion on the issue at hand, and it discourages those who might have legitimate input from posting. I know a number of people do not post any longer on speed related issues even if they might have something worthy of contributing because they don't want to deal with your attacks. In those instances, the poster is not getting the benefit of other views because some with applicable knowledge have decided that it is not worth their time to deal with your venom.

So, take it or leave it, Jim. It's no skin off my nose. But, I suspect that you will aid the posters and your own credibility by ratcheting down the ire in your tone. Relax ... you'll live longer.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Well... maybe I should rethink my expressions of esteem for you. Seems I make a couple of nice statements about you and I get a series of posts explaining what an a$$hole I am. Above I see a very respectful post from me about you and several benign posts that I followed with stating my opinions. However, I see your responses being directed squarely at me, judgemental in nature and quite caustic in tone.

I will simply have to disagree with your perspective of my posts. It is, after all, just your perspective and not etched in stone as you so zealously pointed out to me. I do, however, remember a number of threads where you engaged in just the adament behaviour you are denouncing. When presented with a differing opinion based on statutory and case law, your responses would become more evasive of a direct answer, but no less unyielding. I have seen you make many outlandish statements that are contrary to law and/or the public trust. Maybe the thin air up on your pedestal has clouded your judgement, but you are not the angel, nor the soothing communicator you seem to think you are. Many of your statements are as corrosive (or moreso) than anything I have ever said... you are simply quieter when you say it.

I know you and I differ on many opinions. Apparently you are put off by the fact that I challenge you. You see that as poor bedside manner on my part... I see that as arrogance and narrow-mindedness on yours. I know that in some threads, you have been downright P.O.ed with my refusal to accept your opinion as gospel. I'm sorry that I have yet to recieve my membership card in the Carl fan club... but I can't seem to get over the irony of you telling me that I should be more gentle in my approach in an increasingly aggressive manner over three posts. Maybe some self-evaluation should be in order here.

Sorry Carl... you can't piss on my leg and simply tell me it's raining.

 

[CdwJava]

Well... maybe I should rethink my expressions of esteem for you. Seems I make a couple of nice statements about you and I get a series of posts explaining what an a$$hole I am.

Certainly not how it was intended, but it is not my attitude that raises the hackles of so many.

Above I see a very respectful post from me about you and several benign posts that I followed with stating my opinions. However, I see your responses being directed squarely at me, judgemental in nature and quite caustic in tone.

That was not how they were intended. If you read them that way, I'm sorry. I respect your knowledge, but I do not respect the way you attack those who disagree with you.

I will simply have to disagree with your perspective of my posts. It is, after all, just your perspective and not etched in stone as you so zealously pointed out to me. I do, however, remember a number of threads where you engaged in just the adament behaviour you are denouncing. When presented with a differing opinion based on statutory and case law, your responses would become more evasive of a direct answer, but no less unyielding.

Jim, I suspect that if you look back you will find that any negative responses were after being beaten over the head and shoulders about what an idiot I am, or how I am a shill for the government, or some other comment about my error. You tend to turn disagreement into personal attacks. That is what turns many people off.

I have seen you make many outlandish statements that are contrary to law and/or the public trust.

"Outlandish" being your opinion, not a matter of fact carved in stone. Again, because you believe it to be in error does not make it so.

Maybe the thin air up on your pedestal has clouded your judgement, but you are not the angel, nor the soothing communicator you seem to think you are.

I never thought I was either. But, I am used to dealing with caustic and hot headed individuals on a regular basis so I tend to be a long time coming in getting too ruffled by them.

Many of your statements are as corrosive (or moreso) than anything I have ever said... you are simply quieter when you say it.

You really think so? Okay.

I know you and I differ on many opinions. Apparently you are put off by the fact that I challenge you.

Challenge I don't care about. Insulting and demeaning replies that attack the messenger, I do. There are people here that disagree frequently without being insulting about it. It can be done, Jim.

You see that as poor bedside manner on my part... I see that as arrogance and narrow-mindedness on yours. I know that in some threads, you have been downright P.O.ed with my refusal to accept your opinion as gospel.

Sorry you see it that way. And i don't think I have ever been P.O.'d that you would not accept something at gospel, but there ARE some things that I can speak to that others cannot ... such as what happens behind closed doors of law enforcement agencies and in management meetings. If you don't accept those observations as gospel, so be it.

I'm sorry that I have yet to recieve my membership card in the Carl fan club

I don't even have a membership card in such a place.

... but I can't seem to get over the irony of you telling me that I should be more gentle in my approach in an increasingly aggressive manner over three posts. Maybe some self-evaluation should be in order here.

That was not my intent, Jim. I made a couple benign comment on your "bedside manner" in an attempt to provide what I erroneously thought might be helpful advice on how to avoid getting into daily pissing matches and you took exception to it. Sorry about it. If you like being confrontational, then I guess we'll just let it go at that. To each his own.

If you took exception to my posts, sorry. Rehashing the reasons why I - and many of those here - take exception to many of your posts is not necessary. So, I tried, you disagree, and I am sorry if you took exception with my intent.

My apologies. I will go on no further.

- Carl