Update on locked thread:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/advice-wierd-ticket-ca-21461-no-parking-498571.html
First- this was a MOVING VIOLATION, so it is in this forum.
This has been a long road- Cited December 2009, final decision 8 months later, July 26, 2010
I was cited for failure to obey a regulatory sign... for stopping off a deserted freeway onramp (not on the freeway) in the middle of the day to rest my eyes and drink a diet coke. Cop rolled up and hassled me, ('you could have parked on the county road you crossed over') I had an attitude (I said "the road wasn't plowed, there was NO place to park!") and he wrote me.
Filed a TBD. Exhaustive and persuasive, citing a 'defense of necessity' (By pulling off and standing to rest I was avoding a greater problem- an accident due to nodding off) as well as a solid argument that 21461(b) explicitly excludes a citation for any parking offense. I had CVC text cited, pages from the MUTCD that defined the signs I was accused of violating as "parking signs", pictures, etc.
Guilty. I assume the court failed to read this- which is rumored to be that courts standard procedure.
Proceeded to trial de novo.
No need for discovery, etc. Although the court has refused to provide the officers 235- I'm thinking of pressing for this under FOI, just for S&G.
This court is blatantly 'pro law enforcement'. I sat through 9 cases in which the 'judge' took considerable care to elicit testimony from LEOs in order to cement his future findings of guilt. Anything an LEO said was true, any testimony from the accused was dismissed. (Of course morons defending themselves were no help)...Two attorneys I spoke to agreed with this assessment of this particular court.
I presented my argument(s). The judge said 'I see no defense of necessity', deciding that where I parked (on a deserted off ramp over 6 feet from the traffic lane with nobody having passed over it during the entire time we were there) was still a 'hazardous location'.
However the officer testified that I was parked at a "Emergency Parking Only" sign. Despite photographs that showed no parking signs, he said he cited me for being parked at the emergency sign. (I think the officer sensed that the whole 'parking thing' was maybe going to be a problem, so when I asked him to point to the signs in the MUTCD that I violated, he refused to ID the parking sign- even though it stated "No Parking" (in quotes) on my ticket. I think he thought he could steer it to a hazard/emergency question by insisting the only sign was the "Emergency Parking Only" (No such luck, this is an R8 series parking sign, defined in the MUTCD as enforced by CVC 22505.)
I entered the MUTCD Figure 2B-17 which lists this sign as an "R 8 series" sign. I read the section of the MUTCD which (2B39) which describes the authority to place no parkign signs and states these are '22500 series' in the CVC.
Judge was not happy at the end, and said he wanted to take this under advisement. He promised a response "next week". In actual fact he took three weeks.
A short decision:
"Officer testified that I parked at an Emergency Parking Sign"
"Mr Adam_12 testified that he did not deny parking, but that this is not a violation of 21461(a)."
The decision goes on to state that "CVC 21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting a violation under CVC 22500-22526..... Mr. Adam_12 violated 22505(b) but did not violate 21461(a) and is therefore not guilty".
cdwjava- turns out it WAS a bad cite after all....this was not a technicality, nor a judge making a 'mistake'... it was an officer wasting taxpayer money.
A
PS What is very interesting it this- my TBD was precisely this same argument- 9 pages, cross referencing the VC and MUTCD- yet this same judge found me guilty! It points out, IMHO, that many courts ignore the TBD and just rubber stamp every one guilty....
https://forum.freeadvice.com/speeding-other-moving-violations-13/advice-wierd-ticket-ca-21461-no-parking-498571.html
First- this was a MOVING VIOLATION, so it is in this forum.
This has been a long road- Cited December 2009, final decision 8 months later, July 26, 2010
I was cited for failure to obey a regulatory sign... for stopping off a deserted freeway onramp (not on the freeway) in the middle of the day to rest my eyes and drink a diet coke. Cop rolled up and hassled me, ('you could have parked on the county road you crossed over') I had an attitude (I said "the road wasn't plowed, there was NO place to park!") and he wrote me.
Filed a TBD. Exhaustive and persuasive, citing a 'defense of necessity' (By pulling off and standing to rest I was avoding a greater problem- an accident due to nodding off) as well as a solid argument that 21461(b) explicitly excludes a citation for any parking offense. I had CVC text cited, pages from the MUTCD that defined the signs I was accused of violating as "parking signs", pictures, etc.
Guilty. I assume the court failed to read this- which is rumored to be that courts standard procedure.
Proceeded to trial de novo.
No need for discovery, etc. Although the court has refused to provide the officers 235- I'm thinking of pressing for this under FOI, just for S&G.
This court is blatantly 'pro law enforcement'. I sat through 9 cases in which the 'judge' took considerable care to elicit testimony from LEOs in order to cement his future findings of guilt. Anything an LEO said was true, any testimony from the accused was dismissed. (Of course morons defending themselves were no help)...Two attorneys I spoke to agreed with this assessment of this particular court.
I presented my argument(s). The judge said 'I see no defense of necessity', deciding that where I parked (on a deserted off ramp over 6 feet from the traffic lane with nobody having passed over it during the entire time we were there) was still a 'hazardous location'.
However the officer testified that I was parked at a "Emergency Parking Only" sign. Despite photographs that showed no parking signs, he said he cited me for being parked at the emergency sign. (I think the officer sensed that the whole 'parking thing' was maybe going to be a problem, so when I asked him to point to the signs in the MUTCD that I violated, he refused to ID the parking sign- even though it stated "No Parking" (in quotes) on my ticket. I think he thought he could steer it to a hazard/emergency question by insisting the only sign was the "Emergency Parking Only" (No such luck, this is an R8 series parking sign, defined in the MUTCD as enforced by CVC 22505.)
I entered the MUTCD Figure 2B-17 which lists this sign as an "R 8 series" sign. I read the section of the MUTCD which (2B39) which describes the authority to place no parkign signs and states these are '22500 series' in the CVC.
Judge was not happy at the end, and said he wanted to take this under advisement. He promised a response "next week". In actual fact he took three weeks.
A short decision:
"Officer testified that I parked at an Emergency Parking Sign"
"Mr Adam_12 testified that he did not deny parking, but that this is not a violation of 21461(a)."
The decision goes on to state that "CVC 21461(a) does not apply to acts constituting a violation under CVC 22500-22526..... Mr. Adam_12 violated 22505(b) but did not violate 21461(a) and is therefore not guilty".
cdwjava- turns out it WAS a bad cite after all....this was not a technicality, nor a judge making a 'mistake'... it was an officer wasting taxpayer money.
A
PS What is very interesting it this- my TBD was precisely this same argument- 9 pages, cross referencing the VC and MUTCD- yet this same judge found me guilty! It points out, IMHO, that many courts ignore the TBD and just rubber stamp every one guilty....
Last edited:
