Wrong pull over

[malabu]

Hi, I got a traffic ticket - failure to operate the headlights 24400(b) cvc in CA.

The problem was - I did not understand that it was a police trying to pull me over. The car behind blinded me up with a top white light for something like a mile and did not make anything so that I'll understand that this is a police car. 100 meters after start (but after the car behind me appeared) I did understand that do not have lights and turned them on.
The way they followed me was violation of law (at least in my point of view) - they did not use red light, they did not solve the problem (no headlights) and created dangerous road situation because I was riding half blinded in the night time trying to understand who is behind me.

I told the police that I did not understand that it was a police car behind me. He said that he will force me to learn the rules.
I studied the rules - dmv book for drivers I used to pass the exam. There is no a word about the way how I can understand that they are pulling me over (even on dmv site). I found in internet that the main way you understand that it is police pulling you over - a car with top red light (no white light)...

What will be the best thing for me to do in this situation.

1. I can say in court that I was given a ticket with violation of law (which lead to dangerous road situation) so that it is not valid.
May be I can say it in the different way to be more convincing.
Will it work. Is there any possible problems for me in this case (they will force me to learn rules, say that I was not obeying the police did not stop and admit me guilty for more sever case)
2. Admit guilt and pay ticket. It is zero point ticket.
I do not like to have record of being admitted guilty.

Many thanks,

 

[sandyclaus]

Hi, I got a traffic ticket - failure to operate the headlights 24400(b) cvc.

The problem was - I did not understand that it was a police trying to pull me over. The car behind blinded me up with a top white light for something like a mile and did not make anything so that I'll understand that this is a police car. 100 meters after start (but after the car behind me appeared) I did understand that do not have lights and turned them on.
The way they followed me was violation of law (at least in my point of view) - they did not use red light, they did not solve the problem (no headlights) and created dangerous road situation because I was riding half blinded in the night time trying to understand who is behind me.

I told the police that I did not understand that it was a police car behind me. He said that he will force me to learn the rules.
I studied the rules - dmv book for drivers I used to pass the exam. There is no a word about the way how I can understand that they are pulling me over (even on dmv site). I found in internet that the main way you understand that it is police pulling you over - a car with top red light (no white light)...

What will be the best thing for me to do in this situation.

1. I can say in court that I was given a ticket with violation of law (which lead to dangerous road situation) so that it is not valid.
May be I can say it in the different way to be more convincing.
Will it work. Is there any possible problems for me in this case (they will force me to learn rules, say that I was not obeying the police did not stop and give me server record)
2. Admit the guilt and pay ticket. It is zero point ticket.
I do not like to have record of being admitted guilty.

Many thanks,

What is saying that the police didn't display the right lights when pursuing you going to prove? It doesn't change the fact that you were driving for a significant distance without your headlights on, which is the reason that the ticket was issued in the first place.

Don't like having to admit guilt? Too bad. If the shoe fits, you wear it. Your pride is just going to have to take the hit here. Admit your guilt and pay the ticket, and use this as a learning experience for what NOT to do in the future.

 

[malabu]

What is saying that the police didn't display the right lights when pursuing you going to prove? It doesn't change the fact that you were driving for a significant distance without your headlights on, which is the reason that the ticket was issued in the first place.

100 meters - after start with day like light around is significant distance?
Definitely this is violation, but the ticket was given with much more sever violations.

It is not only wrong light, it is creation of dangerous situation, absence of attempts to solve current problem.
I am afraid that I am not only one - the more they ride after you the more they will try to make you pay. Just make situation unclear and you can write ticket.

They saw me in the moment I was driving from the park and in this case they said that they only had to warn me, not to write tickets. But because they violated the law the situation came to the ticket.

At the end a citation from the other post
"Lots of people in the "DUI community" will jump on the illegal stop defense as their first defense because in the grand scheme of things it's the easiest place to shut a case down"

Don't like having to admit guilt? Too bad. If the shoe fits, you wear it. Your pride is just going to have to take the hit here. Admit your guilt and pay the ticket, and use this as a learning experience for what NOT to do in the future.

I do not like to be rude. I am trying to get information with as little emotions as possible.
The problem is not with pride but with the laws. Sometimes they are treating funny things too sever. For me the record will be really inconvenient in other case I'll pay and forget.
And I am not a machine, sometimes I despite all my efforts am making mistakes. And this problem can not be solved by money unfortunately.

 

[sandyclaus]

100 meters - after start with day like light around is significant distance?
Definitely this is violation, but the ticket was given with much more sever violations.

It is not only wrong light, it is creation of dangerous situation, absence of attempts to solve current problem.
I am afraid that I am not only one - the more they ride after you the more they will try to make you pay. Just make situation unclear and you can write ticket.

They saw me in the moment I was driving from the park and in this case they said that they only had to warn me, not to write tickets. But because they violated the law the situation came to the ticket.

At the end a citation from the other post
"Lots of people in the "DUI community" will jump on the illegal stop defense as their first defense because in the grand scheme of things it's the easiest place to shut a case down"...

And what does all of this have to do with the fact that you were, in fact, guilty of driving without your headlamps? Why do you seem to think that attacking the officer because he flooded you with white light instead of the traditional red/blue flashing lights makes a difference in how guilty you are?

When you saw someone come up behind you with their bright lights on you - ANYONE - it could and should have reminded you to turn on your own headlights. However, clearly you weren't paying attention to your own vehicle safety issues. Perhaps you had your music up too loud, or had other things on your mind. Whatever reasons you had, they don't excuse the fact that YOU failed to turn on your headlights. Whatever the officer did has NOTHING to do with whether or not you committed the violation.

And about that illegal stop defense? It doesn't apply to you. There was nothing illegal about the stop, no matter how much you want to imply there was.

...I do not like to be rude. I am trying to get information with as little emotions as possible.
The problem is not with pride but with the laws. Sometimes they are treating funny things too sever. For me the record will be really inconvenient in other case I'll pay and forget.
And I am not a machine, sometimes I despite all my efforts am making mistakes. And this problem can not be solved by money unfortunately.

Just because you don't agree with the laws doesn't mean they're wrong. Ignorance or not liking the law is not a valid defense.

And no one is saying you can't make mistakes. It's just that when you make a driving mistake like you did, the police have the discretion whether or not to issue a ticket or not. In some situations, such as a safety violation (which includes driving at night without headlights), then the officers sometimes aren't given a choice whether or not to issue the citation. And still others will write the ticket anyway, just to get the point across.

I'll bet that you were arguing with the officer about his bright white lights. I'll also bet that this is why he decided to write the ticket - because you were being defiant and trying to make excuses instead of accepting responsibility for your actions.

Just pay the ticket, and leave your ridiculous attempt at a defense behind, because it will get you nowhere in front of the judge.

 

[malabu]

I am not arguing attacking ignoring anything I am trying to understand how all works. I am asking questions and do not understand how to ask them in more polite way not to obtain the aggressive answers.

In my country I'll never stop if I'll see such lights behind me - it means that this are the criminals and you will have problems if you stop. How can this light say me about my problems with headlight? The car is behind me they can not see my lights....
Police in my country will use flash signal, color signal or loud speaker and never white light because they do not want to be misunderstood.

But here police is using white light. How can I understand that this are not criminals. To stop all the times but it is dangerous for me in case of criminals, or only police can have upper light? Is here any aggression in the question?

I really thought that the police is trying not to violate laws because there is one law for everybody. In films they show that if evidence was got with violation of laws it does not work. Beer in the packets and so on.
But you explained me that this is not case for road police. Fixing small crime they can do larger one. UPS, this is the game. OK, I got it.

I thought that the law about evidence got with violation works in my case. How you can see here ignoration of laws here?

You answered my question. Thank you

 

[sandyclaus]

I am not arguing attacking ignoring anything I am trying to understand how all works. I am asking questions and do not understand how to ask them in more polite way not to obtain the aggressive answers.

In my country I'll never stop if I'll see such lights behind me - it means that this are the criminals and you will have problems if you stop. How can this light say me about my problems with headlight? The car is behind me they can not see my lights....
Police in my country will use flash signal, color signal or loud speaker and never white light because they do not want to be misunderstood.

But here police is using white light. How can I understand that this are not criminals. To stop all the times but it is dangerous for me in case of criminals, or only police can have upper light? Is here any aggression in the question?

I really thought that the police is trying not to violate laws because there is one law for everybody. In films they show that if evidence was got with violation of laws it does not work. Beer in the packets and so on.
But you explained me that this is not case for road police. Fixing small crime they can do larger one. UPS, this is the game. OK, I got it.

I thought that the law about evidence got with violation works in my case. How you can see here ignoration of laws here?

You answered my question. Thank you

You don't seem to understand. It's NOT illegal for the police here to shine bright white lights on vehicles behind which they are driving. The police did not commit a crime, nor did they violate any laws.

Just because it's unsafe to stop in your home country when a vehicle shines bright white lights on you doesn't mean it is unsafe to do it here. This is not your home country, and you need to adjust your thinking about how it works HERE. It's up to YOU to learn our customs and culture, and to understand them and apply them in conjunction with our laws. One custom we DO have here is to flash bright lights as a courtesy when driving behind or towards a vehicle that inadvertently forgot to turn their own lights on. Perhaps the officer did that to try to get your attention and ended up pulling you over and citing you because you drove for so long without your headlights on.

I would consider this a learning experience, pay the ticket, and move on.

 

[malabu]

You don't seem to understand. It's NOT illegal for the police here to shine bright white lights on vehicles behind which they are driving. The police did not commit a crime, nor did they violate any laws.

The problem is - this information is absent in the dmv book. Police who stopped me told that they have to turn on RED light to make pull over. On forums I looked through I got the words that they have to turn on RED light to make pull over. RED light is mandatory in this situation. Plus anything else.

You say they can use white. Yes but then it is not pull over according to information I got. If this was not pull over - why they delivered me a ticket when I stopped.
But if it was pull over - then they violated the rules or not?

Things police doing is different from the words written (where?) and cited by them.

This is the problem, at least for me. I do not understand the rules of the game. And I fill unsafe playing such game. I can not distinguish police from children playing on a Jeep with upper lights.

One custom we DO have here is to flash bright lights as a courtesy when driving behind or towards a vehicle that inadvertently forgot to turn their own lights on. Perhaps the officer did that to try to get your attention and ended up pulling you over and citing you because you drove for so long without your headlights on.

I told already - I switched on headlights 300 feets after parking on the first traffic light, long before they stopped me, but after they saw me. They were driving for a mile stopping on traffic lights and so on with me. Blinding me all the time. And they saw that I switched the lights on when I left downtown (500 feets from the parking lot where I started)

You call this courtesy.

They did not switch on loud siren at night in the downtown. I am grateful to them for this.

I would consider this a learning experience, pay the ticket, and move on.

I got your advise. Thank you.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

I think what the focus here is what other tickets did you get. You imply you received alcohol related charges and were coming out of a park at dawn. That implies you drank and passed out in the park. The officer likely spot lighted you, to scare you and see if you would swerve all over or run.

 

[CdwJava]

Hi, I got a traffic ticket - failure to operate the headlights 24400(b) cvc in CA.

Was that the ONLY section you were cited for?

The way they followed me was violation of law (at least in my point of view) - they did not use red light, they did not solve the problem (no headlights) and created dangerous road situation because I was riding half blinded in the night time trying to understand who is behind me.

Okay ... you are certainly free to speak to the officer';s agency and make a personnel complaint.

What will be the best thing for me to do in this situation.

1. I can say in court that I was given a ticket with violation of law (which lead to dangerous road situation) so that it is not valid.
May be I can say it in the different way to be more convincing.

Your offense will NOT be mitigated because the officer had a takedown light on and you did not immediately see his read light. Had you been cited for a failure to yield, this MIGHT be a relevant argument.

2. Admit guilt and pay ticket. It is zero point ticket.
I do not like to have record of being admitted guilty.

You also have the option of going to trial ... though, what's your defense? Did you have a lawful reason NOT to have your lights on?

 

[Jim_bo]

Malabu,
You need to post the actual section of the vehicle code listed on your ticket. It will probably be preceded by a VC or a CVC. However, you should also know that the cop shining a light in your car is not really a defense (despite the condescension you earlier endured). If you think it was improper, you may file a complaint as Carl said… but it is a separate incident.

 

[malabu]

I think what the focus here is what other tickets did you get. You imply you received alcohol related charges and were coming out of a park at dawn. That implies you drank and passed out in the park. The officer likely spot lighted you, to scare you and see if you would swerve all over or run.

I wrote that I got 24400 (b) cvc record nothing more.
I was at CVS pharmacy. Bought tonic and ice cream to be specific. Started from day light CVS parking lot. Switched on lights on the first traffic light. Did not drink for months.

It was for the first time I was stopped by the police. Never got a ticket. Was shocked by dangerous and unsafe for me manner it is done when I never can be sure who is behind me blinding me up. Could not believe that this was done according to the rule.

Found that with the rules everything is ok. They are different. Thought that then this is violation of laws. Asked on the forum here for the explanation.

They kindly explained me that police can do and always do it in this way ignoring my safety. I got it.

Said thank you for explanation.

After that you are writing about alcohol, park, previous records, swerve all over run. I do not understand. Sorry.

 

[Zigner]

You were cited for driving without your headlights on. The rest is irrelevant. Did you have your headlights properly operating? That's the only question that matters.



From http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc24400.htm


V C Section 24400 Headlamps on Motor Vehicles
Headlamps on Motor Vehicles

24400. (a) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be equipped with at least two headlamps, with at least one on each side of the front of the vehicle, and, except as to vehicles registered prior to January 1, 1930, they shall be located directly above or in advance of the front axle of the vehicle. The headlamps and every light source in any headlamp unit shall be located at a height of not more than 54 inches nor less than 22 inches.

(b) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, shall be operated during darkness, or inclement weather, or both, with at least two lighted headlamps that comply with subdivision (a).

(c) As used in subdivision (b), “inclement weather” is a weather condition that is either of the following:

(1) A condition that prevents a driver of a motor vehicle from clearly discerning a person or another motor vehicle on the highway from a distance of 1,000 feet.

(2) A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture.

 

[malabu]

You were cited for driving without your headlights on. The rest is irrelevant. Did you have your headlights properly operating? That's the only question that matters.

Looking through the internet I got impression that in case of not fully operating lights I'll get 24250 record.
Police clearly saw fully operating lights of brand new car after I switched them on. So it is 24400.

For me the most interesting was: is the rest irrelevant. I got the answer. Thank you.

 

[tranquility]

Here I'm thinking the cop might have been trying to help the OP. Shining a bright light at the OP as if to say, "Turn on your headlights!" I guess the nice officer didn't think the OP acted with the proper alacrity.

 

[malabu]

Here I'm thinking the cop might have been trying to help the OP. Shining a bright light at the OP as if to say, "Turn on your headlights!" I guess the nice officer didn't think the OP acted with the proper alacrity.

It was done for one mile after I turned the lights on. And they saw it. After gave ticket.

If they made it evident that they are police from the beginning I'll stop immediately. And get warning.

For one mile I with my wife was discussing the suspicious car and we were unable to understand who are they. Only when turned to our house saw on the side of the car the sign that they are police. After that stopped.