asherzai21
Junior Member
Hello, and thanks in advance for your responses!
I was driving in California a few months ago. I was stopped near downtown driving northbound on the one-way portion of Figueroa St. (near downtown) for allegedly running a red light. After I was stopped, I was notified that my CA license was suspended...my car was impounded and I was charged with running a red light and driving with a suspended license. I requested my day in court.
Now, here is my defense: I have taken pictures of the intersection at which I allegedly ran the red light. The officer in the patrol car that pulled me over was past the intersection in question (facing northbound) and claims that, after hearing the loud roar of my engine as I crossed the intersection, he saw that my car had entered the intersection after the light turned red. I intend to prove that there is no way that that officer could have witnessed the light turn red before I crossed the intersection. I KNOW and will prove that the officer could not have viewed the light turn red because THERE IS NO TRAFFIC LIGHT POST FOR THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE OF THAT INTERSECTION! This means that even if the officer had spotted me in his rearview mirror crossing the intersection, there would have been no traffic light that he could have used as a reference point to determine that I entered the intersection after the light turned red (he couldn't have used the light post on the northbound side of the intersection because it's not viewable to those who are on the north of the intersection in question; only a southbound light post can be seen from where he was and as I said no such post exists). There was no light stand facing him because one-way Figueroa St. only has light stands facing those who are traveling northbound...so he couldn't possibly have seen the light turn red.
So I feel that I am OK on the red-light charge. Now my question is this: can I request that the judge dismiss the driving with a suspended license charge following the presumptive dismissal of the original charge for which I was pulled over? I ask this because my car was only pulled over in the first place because of the officer's claim that I ran a red light. If I prove that the officer did not see me violate the red light, can I not suggest that the driving with a suspended license charge be dismissed on the grounds that my car was not legally pulled over in the first place for a legitimate reason, thus disqualifiyng the entire process that led to the driving with a suspended license charge? This train of thought makes sense to me but I only have a rudimentary understanding of the law. Does my reasoning here hold up enough for the driving with a suspended license charge to be dismissed, and if so, can I request that the state reimburse me for the price I paid to get my car out of the towing facility in which it was held for 30 days?
However, if I cannot use this line of reasoning, is there another argument anyone can think of with which I can address the disposition of the driving with a suspended license charge? Any help is appreciated!
I was driving in California a few months ago. I was stopped near downtown driving northbound on the one-way portion of Figueroa St. (near downtown) for allegedly running a red light. After I was stopped, I was notified that my CA license was suspended...my car was impounded and I was charged with running a red light and driving with a suspended license. I requested my day in court.
Now, here is my defense: I have taken pictures of the intersection at which I allegedly ran the red light. The officer in the patrol car that pulled me over was past the intersection in question (facing northbound) and claims that, after hearing the loud roar of my engine as I crossed the intersection, he saw that my car had entered the intersection after the light turned red. I intend to prove that there is no way that that officer could have witnessed the light turn red before I crossed the intersection. I KNOW and will prove that the officer could not have viewed the light turn red because THERE IS NO TRAFFIC LIGHT POST FOR THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE OF THAT INTERSECTION! This means that even if the officer had spotted me in his rearview mirror crossing the intersection, there would have been no traffic light that he could have used as a reference point to determine that I entered the intersection after the light turned red (he couldn't have used the light post on the northbound side of the intersection because it's not viewable to those who are on the north of the intersection in question; only a southbound light post can be seen from where he was and as I said no such post exists). There was no light stand facing him because one-way Figueroa St. only has light stands facing those who are traveling northbound...so he couldn't possibly have seen the light turn red.
So I feel that I am OK on the red-light charge. Now my question is this: can I request that the judge dismiss the driving with a suspended license charge following the presumptive dismissal of the original charge for which I was pulled over? I ask this because my car was only pulled over in the first place because of the officer's claim that I ran a red light. If I prove that the officer did not see me violate the red light, can I not suggest that the driving with a suspended license charge be dismissed on the grounds that my car was not legally pulled over in the first place for a legitimate reason, thus disqualifiyng the entire process that led to the driving with a suspended license charge? This train of thought makes sense to me but I only have a rudimentary understanding of the law. Does my reasoning here hold up enough for the driving with a suspended license charge to be dismissed, and if so, can I request that the state reimburse me for the price I paid to get my car out of the towing facility in which it was held for 30 days?
However, if I cannot use this line of reasoning, is there another argument anyone can think of with which I can address the disposition of the driving with a suspended license charge? Any help is appreciated!
Last edited: