10.08.030 LBMC "Failure to obey posted sign"

[Jim_bo]

There's also a sure fire way to avoid being "scammed"... Drive within the legal limits of the law... Sounds simple enough!!!

What a statement. I suppose that if you were to get a parking ticket and find out that the fine was $12,000 you would change that opinion in a hurry.

 

[CdwJava]

A "win-win"!!?!??!!??? What a bizzare interpretation by a state official. How is it a win if I pay double the already outrageous (based on other states) fine?

I do not recall speaking directly to the Long Beach fine, I was speaking in general. Nor do I recall being of the opinion that the assessed fine of $400 was reasonable or not.

When this first broke in Roseville, officials at the state and county level complained, local officials were reserved, and some of the people subject to these fines were happy because the fines were actually slightly less, but did not go on their record.

As for Long Beach, the 2009 Bail and Fine schedule might show that the recommended fine for 21461(a) (a similar offense) are $201 Los Angeles County may levy a higher fine and assessments than that for CVC violations - perhaps approaching $400 ... I do not know. Based upon the L.A. County fine schedule, it seems that it would exceed the $201 rate, but would not approach even $300. If the LB fine actually is twice the CVC fine, I would agree that it seems to be inappropriate and even unreasonable. But, that is a political decision until or unless a court decides that the penalty is excessive and therefore unlawful. One can rant about it, but it will be up to the politicians there to address that. Unfortunately, traffic violators tend to make up a small and not-so-influential political bloc. And as the LBMC assesses infractions with fines of up to $1,000, it would seem to be lawful, even if apparently unreasonable.

I thought that was what the "traffic school bribe" was supposed to do. It seems that the munis are horning in on the state's scam and beating them at it... the only real looser is the motorist!!

Only if the motorist disobeys the law.

The bottom line is... if the state said that we all had to drive around with rubber chickens tied to our heads... you'd see the validity and reasonableness in it. Sorry to be blunt, but you have drank the kool-aid and your obviously state-slanted bias shows.

You are being silly, Jim. While driving around with rubber chickens on our head might be the law in such a scenario, that does not make it reasonable.

And, for the record, there are laws that I disagree with, but that I have a duty to enforce even if I have to hold my nose. My disagreement does not mean I can ignore the law. However, I can think of at least one law that I would refuse to obey even if ordered to enforce under penalty of dismissal ... but that's another topic (and it is not traffic related).

The definition of "reasonable" is a subjective one. What you often fail to understand or appreciate is that there can be different, and legitimate, interpretations of what is reasonable.

- Carl

 

[I_Got_Banned]

What a moronic statement. I suppose that if you were to get a parking ticket and find out that the fine was $12,000 you would change that opinion in a hurry.

The only moronic and idiotic statement is suggesting that ANYONE would park illegally if the fine for doing so was $12,000.

 

[Jim_bo]

The only moronic and idiotic statement is suggesting that ANYONE would park illegally if the fine for doing so was $12,000.

you didn't get the point at all.... sorry. I'll type slower next time.

 

[The Occultist]

you didn't get the point at all.... sorry. I'll type slower next time.

I think he got the point and you missed his. You asserted that he would disagree with everything he said if he were in the OP's situation (and you used an extreme example to further your point), and his response was that it would be impossible to be in the OP's situation because he wouldn't be stupid enough to such a violation so as to earn a ticket, especially if he knew the ticket would result in the outrageous amount you used in your extreme example, thereby denouncing your claim on the basis that it simply wouldn't happen.

 

[BubblyBrunette]

Thanks for all the advice given. I have requested a Trial by Declaration and will let you all know how it turns out.

 

[BubblyBrunette]

After going back to where I had received my ticket, I really felt that I had not failed to obey the sign. The sign was hidden by 4 trees and once I could clearly see it I merged into the lane on my left. It was not a solid white line. I took pictures and filed a Trial by Declaration on 9/8/09. It was my understanding that they would notify me by mail of the decision and then if I was not satisfied I could request a trial.

I just checked my citation on line and again like I found out the last time it's set for trial tomorrow. I have other obligations that I have to attend to. Should I just try calling the court in the morning to see what they tell me? I just spent a good 30 minutes trying to get through all the automated messages to talk to someone but by the time I got to that point, they were closed

 

[BubblyBrunette]

Well I took my chances and called the court rather than break my plans and rush down there this morning and I was told that it wasn't necessary to attend. They have to put a date in the system to make sure that it doesn't fall through the cracks. I should now receive a notice of the courts decision by mail in approx. 7 days. I thought it was cute how the clerk reminded me that since this was a municipal violation that it won't give me a point on my record should I be found guilty

 

[nkumar7]

The only moronic and idiotic statement is suggesting that ANYONE would park illegally if the fine for doing so was $12,000.

Really? And how exactly would you know beforehand how much the fine for illegal parking in any given spot was? What if prior experience with parking fines had told you it was $10-$20?

Regardless, The OP had no way of knowing that the fine would be $400 plus did she? It seems that most of you 'guilty at any charge' folks seem to go by the 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra. Is there no scope for reason?

 

[BubblyBrunette]

I just received notice in the mail. They still found me guilty and I will need to file the paperwork for a trial de novo.

Any suggestions on what I should be prepared for?

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I just received notice in the mail. They still found me guilty and I will need to file the paperwork for a trial de novo.

Any suggestions on what I should be prepared for?

You should request a copy of the officer's declaration from the court clerk. That will give you an idea on how he/she will testify at the trial de novo. From there you can try to put together a defense argument for the court.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Really? And how exactly would you know beforehand how much the fine for illegal parking in any given spot was?

Most people don't.... But what does that have to do with guilt or innocence?????

Browse the forums here and you will find many posts by many people who do actually state "I think the fine is too much so I'm contesting this ticket", when in fact the their guilt or innocence is not dependant upon what the fine amount is. It ONLY depends on whether the violation was in fact committed and whether the elements of such a violation can be proven in court. last time I checked, "the fine is too high so I'm not guilty" would not serve as a viable defense.

What if prior experience with parking fines had told you it was $10-$20?

What if...? What's your point???

Are you suggesting that people who park illegally (at say a parking meter) are willing to risk a $10, $20 or a $100 (for that matter) in lieu of spending a few coins for that meter?

Regardless, The OP had no way of knowing that the fine would be $400 plus did she?

AGAIN... What does that have to do with whether she did in fact commit the alleged violation???

Regardless, The OP had no way of knowing that the fine would be $400 plus did she? It seems that most of you 'guilty at any charge' folks seem to go by the 'guilty until proven innocent' mantra. Is there no scope for reason?

"Reason"? Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to decide someone's guilt or innocence based upon the fine amount?

 

[BubblyBrunette]

You should request a copy of the officer's declaration from the court clerk. That will give you an idea on how he/she will testify at the trial de novo. From there you can try to put together a defense argument for the court.

Thank you for your advice. I really do appreciate it.

 

[BubblyBrunette]

I received my court date for Trial de Novo and it's on 12/17/09. I also obtained a copy of the citation with the Officer's notes on the back as they didn't have a copy of his transcripts when I'd asked for it.

Now I am looking for a City Ordinance or Regulation that shows that a public sign shouldn't be obstructed by the tree or something to that effect.

I've been researching through the Public Works Dept. on their tree maintenance policy and also tried going through the City of Long Beach's website but I don't find anything that states what hight a tree should be or that it shouldn't obstruct a traffic sign. I don't even know if such a rule exsists.

Does anyone have any experience with such a regulation? I plan on presenting the pictures I took of the sign, trees and surrounding areas to prove my case but would also like to strengthen it with this additional information if possible.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I received my court date for Trial de Novo and it's on 12/17/09.

When did you submit your request for the Trial De Novo? What date?

I also obtained a copy of the citation with the Officer's notes on the back as they didn't have a copy of his transcripts when I'd asked for it.

You are not asking for a copy of a transcript. Instead, you are asking for a copy of the "Officer's Declaration" which is otherwise known (to the court) as form TR-235. If your TBD case has already been adjudicated, then there should be no doubt that the officer's declaration is in your case file at the court.

Now I am looking for a City Ordinance or Regulation that shows that a public sign shouldn't be obstructed by the tree or something to that effect.

I've been researching through the Public Works Dept. on their tree maintenance policy and also tried going through the City of Long Beach's website but I don't find anything that states what hight a tree should be or that it shouldn't obstruct a traffic sign. I don't even know if such a rule exsists.

Does anyone have any experience with such a regulation? I plan on presenting the pictures I took of the sign, trees and surrounding areas to prove my case but would also like to strengthen it with this additional information if possible.

I am not preview to a particular City of Long beach ordinance that addresses sign placement (it doesn't mean it doesn't exist). But you can read through the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (particularly Chapter 2A) which should include the standard requirements for sign placement and visibility. here's a link where you can scroll through the manual for more information: California - FHWA MUTCD