R turn on red, when No Turn on Red sign present

[nkumar7]

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

On July 13, 2008, I got pulled over for making an illegal right turn when I made a right at a T intersection. There was a No turn on red sign present, but I have driven on that road many times, and feel that the sign is redundant, as visibility is clearly good enough to make a reasonable judgement.

I got pulled over for that, and got a ticket (my first violation, I am a 25 y/o male). My court date is approaching, and I just happened to drive by the same intersection and Lo! It seems as if GA DMV/whoever is in charge of this, had the same idea as me, for the sign has been taken down.

Can I use this information in any way to make a not guilty plea? Does anyone have any other ideas?

Also, can anyone tell me if there is a website where I can look up when/why this sign was removed?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Alex23]

I hope YOU didn't go out in the middle of the night and remove your 'favorite' sign.

 

[nkumar7]

I hope YOU didn't go out in the middle of the night and remove your 'favorite' sign.

hahaha...no it wasnt me, thats why I want to check the records to see why it was removed. It was up next to the red light, so it would be pretty hard for me to stand there unnoticed and do it.

But can anyone answer my questions, really?

 

[FlyingRon]

Gee, I must have missed the part of the statute that allows you to disregard traffic signs when you feel that your own judgement justifies it.

 

[nkumar7]

Gee, I must have missed the part of the statute that allows you to disregard traffic signs when you feel that your own judgement justifies it.

thanks for the sermon FR, that's not what I asked for. There are laws about speeding that talk about reasonable speed, and if you can show that given the circumstances, your speed, although above the posted limit, was reasonable, that is fine.

If you would like to really help, how about bottle the sarcasm and use your apparent expertise to give me a simple answer?

 

[Some Random Guy]

There is no reasonableness exception to posted signs. Your only excuses here would be moving to avoid an oncoming car, pulling over for police/ambulance/fire trucks, or an obscured or illegible sign.

 

[nkumar7]

There is no reasonableness exception to posted signs. Your only excuses here would be moving to avoid an oncoming car, pulling over for police/ambulance/fire trucks, or an obscured or illegible sign.

Thanks SRG, that is the kind of answer I was looking for. So the subsequent removal (and I'm assuming- deeming unnecessary) of the sign is of no consequence.

Any information about where one could look up information about when/why the sign was taken down?

 

[HomeGuru]

Thanks SRG, that is the kind of answer I was looking for. So the subsequent removal (and I'm assuming- deeming unnecessary) of the sign is of no consequence.

Any information about where one could look up information about when/why the sign was taken down?

**A: the taken down sign is not relevant since the sign was posted when you were issued the ticket.

 

[Maestro64]

I know lots of people are not going to like this response.

Due to the fact when the average person walks into a court room you are at a total disadvantage, you some times have to find and use anything to your advantage. And before I make my next statement, I will simple say this, all signs must be placed in accordance to the MUTCD and can not be randomly and without justification placed. Just because a sign exist does not make it legal or reasonable.

Since there is no sign there today, the burden of proof lies on the state to prove it was legally placed there when the ticket was give, in fact they have to prove it actual exist when the ticket was issued.

Do you really think the police are prepared to walk in to court with documentation the sign in fact existed at one time and was legally placed. I highly doubt it. If you play your cards right and challenge the fact the sign ever existed in the first place you could win.

This is not an endorsement, however, this guys site has examples of winning tickets in GA because a sign was not legally placed.

http://thegeorgiaspeedingticketkiller.com/

 

[You Are Guilty]

I know lots of people are not going to like this response.

Due to the fact when the average person walks into a court room you at a total disadvantage, you something have to find and use anything to your advantage. And before I make my next statement, I will simple say this, all signs must be placed in accordance to the MUTCD and can not be randomly and without justification placed. Just because a sign exist does not make it legal or reasonable.

Since there is no sign there today, the burden of proof lies on the state to prove it was legally placed there when the ticket was give, in fact they have to prove it actual exist when the ticket was issued.

Do you really think the police are prepared to walk in to court with documentation the sign in fact existed at one time and was legally placed. I highly doubt it. If you play your cards right and challenge the fact the sign ever existed in the first place you could win.

This is not an endorsement, however, this guys site have example of winning tickets in GA because a sign was not legal placed.

the Georgia Speeding TICKET KILLER

This is an excellent example where reality and "the law" diverge. While yes, technically, the state has the burden of proving all elements of the charge, in practice, if the driver wants to claim "illegal sign", then it is treated as an affirmative defense and the burden of proving it will be on the driver.

However, my crystal balls are telling me that this ticket will be upheld. OP, keep us posted.

 

[seniorjudge]

...

However, my crystal balls are telling me that this ticket will be upheld.

...

Let's hear more about this.

 

[The Occultist]

Maestro, I must disagree with your post. The court will assume the signage was correct unless the OP, as part of his defense, can provide proof that the signage was indeed incorrect. Nobody will take a defendant's story on his word alone as the defendant, obviously, has a biased interest in the outcome of the trial.

 

[HomeGuru]

Let's hear more about this.

**A: well for starters he has 2 of them.

 

[Maestro64]

Maestro, I must disagree with your post. The court will assume the signage was correct unless the OP, as part of his defense, can provide proof that the signage was indeed incorrect. Nobody will take a defendant's story on his word alone as the defendant, obviously, has a biased interest in the outcome of the trial.

I do agree the judge will give the state and police the benefit of the doubt, unless you call it into question. The question would be was the sign legally place per the requirements set forth by the MUTCD. (Not a easy battle to win unless you know the requirements and can get the point across to the judge).

Second and probably the easiest in this case was the sign actually there. Since the person can provide a picture showing there is no sign can the state/officer provide evidence it was in fact there at the time in question. Grant it the officer will turn around and say it was and you challenge that since he is offering no evidence other than his word the sign once exist then you challenge him on the reason it is no longer there if it once was. I would say you can not say it existed and have no reason why it is not there. Obviously any answer the officer offer could be speculation since he has not independent proof and we know you are not allowed to speculate in court, it is about facts.

The person does not have to lie, all they need to do is ask the question and show there is no sign at present, make no statement about whether it was every there.

You know what they say when someone assume, in this case if they do assume they could have egg on their face. Every case I have read and heard about where the person won, it was because the police or court assumed something and when the defendant presented a reasonable alternate view the court ruled in their favor.

I personally could see someone winning this, if they prepare themselves and ask the right questions, however, most do not prepare and rely on a wish and dream and loss.

 

[Zigner]

Second and probably the easiest in this case was the sign actually there. Since the person can provide a picture showing there is no sign can the state/officer provide evidence it was in fact there at the time in question. Grant it the officer will turn around and say it was and you challenge that since he is offering no evidence other than his word the sign once exist then you challenge him on the reason it is no longer there if it once was.

That makes no sense.

Let's say that on Monday, there is a sign there. The OP saw it and the police officer saw it. The police officer (an unbiased, expert witness) will testify that the sign was there on Monday. What proof can the OP offer that there was no sign there on Monday? A picture from Wednesday is not proof that the sign wasn't there Monday. As for why the sign was removed...it really doesn't matter. Perhaps it was knocked over by another car sometime after the citation was issued. Perhaps the national NRTOR organization made away with it in the night. In the end, the fact of the matter is that the sign WAS there and the OP can offer no evidence that will overcome the evidence presented by the officer.