Advice on a wierd ticket..CA 21461(a) for no parking

[adam_12]

California...First post, long time reader.

So, I've had a long day of driving up into the mountains and back- leaving before sunrise, rain and snow the whole day. About 3PM in the afternoon I am driving on the freeway, and felt tired - really tired, eyes not focussing. Pulled off at an exit in the middle of nowhere. No services, just a county road. Snow all over.. I crossed over county maintained road which had no plowed shoulders, and back onto the beginning of the entrance ramp. Still 1/4 mile from freeway, and only visible to someone coming off the exit- not visible from the main freeway. Sierra foothills. Federal highway

Engine running, grab a diet Coke from the trunk for some caffeine.. just resting my eyes.... There is a "No parking" sign on the ramp.

CHP arrives within a minute, just about when I get the seat back. He give me a lecture, THEN cites me for "failure to obey sign", VC 21461(a).... ?!?!? It seems that I've failed to obey a "no parking sign".

So besides this being a weasel citation- (lets not get into splitting hairs over 'stopping, standing and parking'... and I actually did think I could stand there, since I wasn't leaving the car parked and the car was running and I was in the drivers seat.)

My questions is a bit beyond the normal "Should I fight this speeding ticket or take traffic school" question...

I was cited for VC 21461(a) ...which is 'failure to obey posted sign"


Two questions:

1. Am I 'guilty' of the code for which I was cited?

2. If 'no' what is the best way to contest this?

Thanks!

A

 

[I_Got_Banned]

Engine running, grab a diet Coke from the trunk for some caffeine.. just resting my eyes.... There is a "No parking" sign on the ramp.

CHP arrives within a minute, just about when I get the seat back. He give me a lecture, THEN cites me for "failure to obey sign", VC 21461(a).... ?!?!? It seems that I've failed to obey a "no parking sign".
...
I was cited for VC 21461(a) ...which is 'failure to obey posted sign"

21461. (a) It is unlawful for a driver of a vehicle to fail to obey a sign or signal defined as regulatory in the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or a Department of Transportation approved supplement to that manual of a regulatory nature erected or maintained to enhance traffic safety and operations or to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or a local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance, or to fail to obey a device erected or maintained by lawful authority of a public body or official.

463. "Park or parking" shall mean the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers.​

I'm not going to pass judgment as to your own guilt or innocence. You can, however, try and argue that you were not “parked” as is defined in CVC 463. Whether that will fly as a valid argument or not, only the judge's opinion will matter. Make your own interpretations and develop your own defense.

 

[HighwayMan]

What did the parking sign look like? If it wasn't a standard traffic control sign as defined in the MUTCD then you might be able to win it.

You should have gotten a parking ticket not a mover.

 

[adam_12]

What did the parking sign look like? If it wasn't a standard traffic control sign as defined in the MUTCD then you might be able to win it.

You should have gotten a parking ticket not a mover.

Clearly it was a valid sign.... in fact there was an "emergency parking only" as well as a "No Parking" sign... there was just no place else to pull over and park, out of traffic, given the snow and lack of plowing on the county road.

But in my research I found a paragraph B under CA VC Section 21461....(I was cited for (a):


(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500).

Hmm, so I look up 22500, and find that these are all the regulations on "Parking" and in particular VC 22505 describes the restrictions on parking on highways....

(Yes, these "22500- up" are 'non-movers' so no point


My planned defense is two fold: first I was cited for the wrong code, that 21461(b) specifically states that (a) excludes a parking violation. (On the citation the officer lists "No parking any time" and "Emergency Parking Only" under the description... even more intriguing is his adding "Taking a break" to this section...) I suppose he was just repeating what I told him...

Second is the defense that my action- to stop driving and pull over in a safe area off a deserted on-ramp - was necessary to avoid a 'great danger', namely falling asleep at the wheel. The term I believe is 'defense of necessity'. I found a set of jury instructions that describe the components one needs to establish to mount this defense, and pretty sure I meet all of them.

Anyway, what is the best approach? trial by declaration? See if the court will just dismiss it? Or drag the officer into court? Contact the officers supervisor?

Editorially speaking, at a time when CHP is looking to engender support and positive images, it is tickets like this that really does not help that agency...

and I suppose even more annoying is the knowledge that my tax dollars are being used to support an officer with bad judgment and manners, who can't properly write a citation, and will also be used to support the legal process to dismiss this.

I am trying to balance the desire to achieve some level of 'retribution' against just getting beyond the matter.

A

PS Crackpot or not, I value full sentences and thoughts- and while it is sometime intellectually entertaining to take a stand against "the man" on some arcane interpretation of the constitution, I recognize that at the end of the day I'd rather be 'not in jail' and wind up winning a case by being a participant in a 'corrupt system' and playing by 'their rules'.

 

[Dillon]

PS Crackpot or not, I value full sentences and thoughts- and while it is sometime intellectually entertaining to take a stand agains "the man" on some arcane interpretation of the constitution, I recognize that at the end of the day I'd rather be 'not in jail' and wind up winning a case by being a participant in a 'corrupt system' and playing by 'their rules'.

oh well, you have your answer, good luck

 

[CdwJava]

You are fortunate that your vehicle was not towed. If it was in a position that could have rendered it a hazard to traffic, you could have been both cited and towed.

You can always try the TBD first then a new trial when/if you lose.

 

[Dillon]

You are fortunate that your vehicle was not towed. If it was in a position that could have rendered it a hazard to traffic, you could have been both cited and towed.

You can always try the TBD first then a new trial when/if you lose.

I would deny subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff generally will or cant testify under oath to facts on the court record and the cop is only an observer untill questioned under oath as to the facts as a witness of the matter on the record.

 

[CdwJava]

I would deny subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff generally will or cant testify under oath to facts on the court record and the cop is only an observer and generally not under oath to the facts as a witness of the matter on the court record either.

And you would lose.

So, you had best hope you have a plan "B."

Research the subject of a "complaint" in CA and how it applies to traffic offenses and you will find out how it works if you look far enough. Though, I really doubt you CARE how it works ... oh, and you won't find the answer in the dictionary.

 

[Dillon]

And you would lose.

So, you had best hope you have a plan "B."

Research the subject of a "complaint" in CA and how it applies to traffic offenses and you will find out how it works if you look far enough. Though, I really doubt you CARE how it works ... oh, and you won't find the answer in the dictionary.

The courts sent me a "courtesy notice" to appear in court in late june....(knowing that a "summons" is NOT an "order" and not mandatory, and knowing that after the "courtesy notice" goes uncontested for 3-10 days the court then sends an "order and notice to appear") I sent back a letter:

[[[[[[[

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT / VALLEJO BRANCH
321 TUOLUMNE ST,
VALLEJO, CA
94590

Response
Certified Mail number: 7008 1140 0002 2938 1732

RE: 07-06-2009
name
address

DOCKET NO: F 1501587

Thank you for your correspondence titled "COURTESY NOTICE", however, because this is not an order, nor have I consented to a summons by being a "resident" of California and having a "California Drivers License" or "California Registration" (see CVC 17459, CVC 17460), nor have I consented to a summons by signing a "notice to appear", as my 'signature' was under duress and threat of arrest, and accompanied by "non-assumpsit", and "under protest UCC 1-308", I must decline this offer for appearance.

This action is being taken because officer Rodriguez, operating without proper jurisdiction, as I claimed and exercised my right to travel by my private non-commercial conveyance, responded to my rejection of signing the "notice to appear' with threat of arrest, although she could not cite which section of the code, CVC or otherwise would allow her to do so.

According to California law, ONLY if I am being arrested for an "arrestable offense" may an officer arrest me for failing to sign a contract. see California Penal Code 853.5

infractions are not criminal in California, means no criminal activity to arrest, not free to leave a traffic stop means an arrest.

Furthermore, I returned my "copy" of the "notice to appear" to the Fairfield branch of the CHP within 72 hours of the issuance, and stamped "REFUSED FOR FRAUD" across the face of the contract, and no new contract has been sent.

Please review the "citation" or "notice to appear" issued by officer Rodriguez before further correspondence.

Please also review my recent correspondence to Commissioner Farrow of the CHP, and Governor Schwarzenegger, and my current fee schedule.

All rights reserved, without prejudice UCC 1-308
Thank you

_________________________________
name
ENCL:
Response
FEE SCHEDULE
LETTER TO GOVERNOR
]]]]]]]

well, I NEVER received my "order and notice" and I called today, and there was NO RECORD of this incident on file with the court!!!!

fight ALL of your tickets, the govt. hopes you just pay the fine and move on. My friend got a "job" $40 focus group to see "how much would a cell phone ticket have to be before you would fight it". this was set up and held at the court house. They do this to keep the ticket low enough so you wont fight it.


THE STATES CAN NOT be a plaintiff!!!!
it is a conflict of interest for a plaintiff to be "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" or "STATE OF ARIZONA" etc, because the judges are EMPLOYED by those states....some might say "well, then how do the States file charges?", the answer is, THEY DONT!! they are not allowed to! their job is to PROTECT your rights, not trample them!!!

this is why they USE TO say "would you like to press charges?".....

 

[CdwJava]

The citation served as your notice and complaint ... look it up. Try the state Penal Code.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The courts sent me a "courtesy notice" to appear in court in late june....(knowing that a "summons" is NOT an "order" and not mandatory, and knowing that after the "courtesy notice" goes uncontested for 3-10 days the court then sends an "order and notice to appear") I sent back a letter:

[[[[[[[

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA, THE
Also Traded as SOLANO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT / VALLEJO BRANCH
321 TUOLUMNE ST,
VALLEJO, CA
94590

Response
Certified Mail number: 7008 1140 0002 2938 1732

RE: 07-06-2009
name
address

DOCKET NO: F 1501587

Thank you for your correspondence titled "COURTESY NOTICE", however, because this is not an order, nor have I consented to a summons by being a "resident" of California and having a "California Drivers License" or "California Registration" (see CVC 17459, CVC 17460), nor have I consented to a summons by signing a "notice to appear", as my 'signature' was under duress and threat of arrest, and accompanied by "non-assumpsit", and "under protest UCC 1-308", I must decline this offer for appearance.

This action is being taken because officer Rodriguez, operating without proper jurisdiction, as I claimed and exercised my right to travel by my private non-commercial conveyance, responded to my rejection of signing the "notice to appear' with threat of arrest, although she could not cite which section of the code, CVC or otherwise would allow her to do so.

According to California law, ONLY if I am being arrested for an "arrestable offense" may an officer arrest me for failing to sign a contract.
see California Penal Code 853.5

infractions are not criminal in California, means no criminal activity to arrest, not free to leave a traffic stop means an arrest.

Furthermore, I returned my "copy" of the "notice to appear" to the Fairfield branch of the CHP within 72 hours of the issuance, and stamped "REFUSED FOR FRAUD" across the face of the contract, and no new contract has been sent.

Please review the "citation" or "notice to appear" issued by officer Rodriguez before further correspondence.
Please also review my recent correspondence to Commissioner Farrow of the CHP, and Governor Schwarzenegger, and my current fee schedule.

All rights reserved, without prejudice UCC 1-308
Thank you

_________________________________
name
ENCL:
Response
FEE SCHEDULE
LETTER TO GOVERNOR
]]]]]]]

well, I NEVER received my "order and notice" and I called today, and there was NO RECORD of this incident on file with the court!!!!

fight ALL of your tickets, the govt. hopes you just pay the fine and move on. My friend got a "job" $40 focus group to see "how much would a cell phone ticket have to be before you would fight it". this was set up and held at the court house. They do this to keep the ticket low enough so you wont fight it.


THE STATES CAN NOT be a plaintiff!!!!
it is a conflict of interest for a plaintiff to be "PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA" or "STATE OF ARIZONA" etc, because the judges are EMPLOYED by those states....some might say "well, then how do the States file charges?", the answer is, THEY DONT!! they are not allowed to! their job is to PROTECT your rights, not trample them!!!

this is why they USE TO say "would you like to press charges?".....

You are so confused I don't even know where to start... But it is obvious that neither I, nor anyone here can guide you in the right direction. You seriously need some proffessional help. And I don't only mean legal help... though my expectations aren't too great...

My only advice to you is that you need to check the status of your license with the DMV... As it is more likely suspended by now (yes, you signed a notice to appear and yet failed to do so (an FTA is a misdemeanor, by the way). God forbid that you should get a "driving while suspended" ticket (that too, can be charged as a misdemeanor). As that will set you off on another one of your obscure and incomprehensible tangents and who knows where you will end up as a result.

Whether you are serious about your posts or whether you are pretending you're as big an nitwit as you make yourself to be, I don't know... For your sake though, I do hope that you are a troll...

 

[adam_12]

You are fortunate that your vehicle was not towed. If it was in a position that could have rendered it a hazard to traffic, you could have been both cited and towed.

You can always try the TBD first then a new trial when/if you lose.

I was IN THE CAR, IN THE DRIVERS SEAT, ENGINE RUNNING.

Off the shoulder on a deserted on ramp, in mid winter, mid week.

Wouldn't an officer be required to AT LEAST ask me to move? (Never mind the sign didn't say "no stopping, no standing"...)

 

[adam_12]

You can always try the TBD first then a new trial when/if you lose.

So your expert opinon- as and LEO- is that 21461(a) is a good cite for parking at a 'no parking sign'?

Or are you saying it is a bad cite, but I will loose anyway?

Or are you avoiding that question?

A

 

[I_Got_Banned]

I was IN THE CAR, IN THE DRIVERS SEAT, ENGINE RUNNING.

Off the shoulder on a deserted on ramp, in mid winter, mid week.

You have to keep in mind that this will all depend on whether the officer will testify that he cited you for the "no parking violation" or for violating the "Emergency Parking Only" sign (I think that is CVC 21718) and if it is the latter, then your argument that 21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting violations under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) of this division or to acts constituting violations of a local traffic ordinance adopted pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 22500) might not get you where you want to be.

Wouldn't an officer be required to AT LEAST ask me to move? (Never mind the sign didn't say "no stopping, no standing"...)

"Required to"? Come on.... Think of any traffic violation and then try to justify that the officer is REQUIRED to warn someone who is in violation before he/she issues a citation. Yes, there are times when officers will issue a warning however, nothing precludes them from issuing a citation if they witness someone committing an alleged violation.

 

[CdwJava]

I was IN THE CAR, IN THE DRIVERS SEAT, ENGINE RUNNING.

Off the shoulder on a deserted on ramp, in mid winter, mid week.

Wouldn't an officer be required to AT LEAST ask me to move? (Never mind the sign didn't say "no stopping, no standing"...)

I presumed it was parked and you were out of the car when I wrote that. My bad.

So your expert opinon- as and LEO- is that 21461(a) is a good cite for parking at a 'no parking sign'?

Or are you saying it is a bad cite, but I will loose anyway?

Or are you avoiding that question?

Not seeing the signage, and not knowing whether you were parked on the state maintained offramp or a county road, I cannot say one way or the other. If the signage was there and prohibited your parking, it would seem a good citation. However, given the weather you might be able to argue some sort of mitigation for safety purposes, but that is up to the judge.