The sign says “No U-turn” and you make one anyway. The sign says “No Left Turn” but there you go, making a safe left turn when traffic is clear. It would seem that these sort of actions would be the most cut-and-dry for the police to cite you. The guilt in these cases seems obvious. Not always. Because these type of violations are less common, officers often forget the exact code that applies. To avoid writing an improper code (which would guarantee a dismissal to the savvy ticket consumer) they instead cite you under a generic sign code, CVC 21461(a).
Failure to obey a sign or signal, 21461(a), is perhaps the most vague moving violation in the entire vehicle code. This charge is used by police as a “catch-all” when they cannot remember a specific charge for which to cite you.
CVC 21461(a), Disobedience to Official Traffic Control Devices, states:”It shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or any local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance.”
The text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must have been violated for you to be guilty of violating 21461(a).
Here we contest that the code or ordinance that the sign allegedly enforces may not exist and that your actions may have been legal. If the officer can not recall the “referent” law that the sign is meant to make you obey, your case should be dismissed.
For directions on how to use this document, click here.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant’s Name: Rick Donovan
Case No.: S780824
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21461(a).
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving eastbound on Broadway at 1745 on 3-24-99, I safely executed a left turn onto 5th Avenue pursuant to CVC 21801 which states: “The driver of a vehicle intending to turn to the left…shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching from the opposite direction which are close enough to constitute a hazard at any time during the turning movement, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to the approaching vehicles until the left turn can be made with reasonable safety.”
Despite my safe left turn, I was stopped by SDPD Officer Porcine (I.D.#1234) and was charged with violating CVC 21461(a). Officer Porcine has alleged that my safe turn was illegal due to a small “No Left Turn” symbol hanging approximately 20 ft above the intersection, well out of the normal range of vision of a safe driver turning at an intersection. The officer pointed out this sign at my stop. My attention during my safe left turn was focused on avoiding potential conflicts with oncoming traffic, traffic moving at street level, not at a small sign 20 feet overhead well out of sight.
CVC 21461(a) states: “It shall be unlawful for any driver of a vehicle to fail to obey any sign or signal erected or maintained to indicate and carry out the provisions of this code or any local traffic ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to a local traffic ordinance.”
The text of 21461(a) indicates that this code can not stand alone as an enforceable traffic offense; some other vehicle code provision or local traffic ordinance must be proven to have been violated for a person to be guilty of violating 21461(a). The hard-to-see sign is not enough; there must be some other law that makes the movement I made onto 5th avenue illegal and thus make the sign itself based on some enforceable code section or local ordinance.
I believe that it is clear that a mere referral on his part to a sign, which refers to 21461(a), which itself refers to one of many “provisions of this code or local traffic ordinances” should not be enough to sustain a conviction in this case. Without the officer providing the Court the specific code section or local ordinance he believes I allegedly violated, a conviction in this case is not supported by the law.
Officer Porcine did not indicate on my citation which provision of the California Vehicle Code or which local traffic ordinance or resolution I might have violated by turning left onto 5th Ave. My research failed to find any local ordinance that restricts a driver from making a safe left turn onto 5th Ave from Broadway as I did pursuant to CVC 21801. If Officer Porcine does not indicate on his Written Declaration the specific Vehicle Code section or local traffic ordinance that he believes I violated by turning left on 5th Ave, I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a Trial de Novo.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
( date )
( signature )
( name typed out )