Nancy, puzzled by why the officer issued a Traffic Ticket for Unsafe Starting (VC22106),then changed it to Unsafe Turning Movement (VC22107) discussed the Traffic Ticket
Over morning cups of coffee at home
With friends and relatives on the phone.
With reference clerks at the library.
With passing acquaintances on the street.
With lawyers or receptionists on the phone.
With a driving school instructor
She sought information from
A book on safe driving.
VC22106 and VC22107 computer printouts from the library
Reading “How To Fight A Ticket and Win In Ca” by Attorney David Brown
Observing Traffic Ticket Court
A book covering the vehicle codes.
The DMV handbook for drivers
A friend who was familiar with traffic courts.
Nancy remained puzzled
***************************************************************

A friend’s suggestion, the instructions in small print on the back of the Traffic Ticket stating that a driver could file a Trial by Declaration prompted this driver to prepare a statement on why the Traffic Ticket should be dismissed. The fact that a court appearance would be avoided and that a new trial could be requested if the commissioner ruled against dismissal appealed to Nancy.
Certainly she hoped the information the officer hadn’t provided in the Notice of Correction would be in the officer’s reply to her request for dismissal. Surely the officer would explain why he had issued the Traffic Ticket for VC22106 and changed it to VC22107 the next day.
No matter how many times she looked at the Traffic Ticket, Nancy couldn’t make out if the officer meant the street before, or the street after she had turned right as the street where he cited her for violation of VC22106
Nancy reasoned that because the Traffic Ticket violation had been changed to VC22107(Unsafe Turning Movement ) and the Court Docket read VC22107 (Unsafe Turn or Lane Change) that the officer had issued the Traffic Ticket because he thought that she had moved to the right too soon to make a right hand turn. He just wrote in the wrong intersection.

Starting Parked Vehicles or Backing
22106. No person shall start a vehicle stopped, standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall any person back a vehicle on a highway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.
Turning Movements and Required Signals
22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.
Amended Ch. 1996, Stats. 1959. Effective September 18, 1959.

Going with this assumption Nancy prepared a statement on why the Traffic Ticket should be dismissed.
Edited for clarity, the content remains the same.
After starting with the date of the Traffic Ticket, car description and license plate number.Nancy continued:
I signaled at least 100 feet from where I made a right hand turn expecting the driver behind me to comply with a three car length distance from his car to mine, the speed limit being 30 mph.
The driver behind me was so close that tapping my brakes or falling back would have added to an already unsafe situation. I pulled as far to the right as possible to let the driver behind me pass to the left as there was ample room to do so. All that happened was that I moved to the right hand side of the lane sooner than I normally would.
There is a red zone for a third of the block in which I moved well out of the way of thru traffic. In fact two cars passed me on the left without a problem as I was making my turn. I continued down the street I had turned on and about two blocks later as soon as the officer flashed his lights I pulled into a parking place.
After checking my Driver’s license and Insurance the officer issued me a ticket for VC22106 which I signed. The officer was adamant that I get out of my car to walk to his car so he could draw a diagram.
I disagree with his citation issued for the following reasons
DMV Handbook recommends pulling over as an option when being tailgated.
As I was in nobody’s way when I moved over, what I did was safe.
Traffic was heavy. If the officer glanced away for a few seconds his perception of what happened would be compromised.
Because the officer’s car was parked facing south and was out of my line of sight as I was making my turn, the officer was not in a position to see what happened at the intersection where I turned right.
Finally the violation was changed the next day from VC22106 to VC22107.
With her statement prepared all Nancy needed to do next was to pick up two forms from the court .TR200 had instructions for the driver and TR205 which needed to be filed with the court served the dual purpose of requesting a trial by declaration and submitting a statement. Because the book she referred to had a blank TR205 form she could copy,instructions and a sample, she also had the option of skipping a visit to the court for forms and going to the library to make a copy of the one she had in the book.

What happened then?
The driver filed the Trial by Declaration after a re-write
The driver decided to file for Discovery instead

What would you advise the driver to do
File the Trial by Declaration
Request Discovery. Then File.
Obtain Discovery. Go to court?

Posted on May 15th, 2007 by paula
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

POST#6 Detours Ahead

Nancy decided not to file the Trial by Declaration. She needed to know why she had been cited for one violation one day, and a different one the next. She needed to know which intersection the officer was referring to when he gave her the Traffic Ticket. She needed his notes.

She would request
Discovery. How simple was that? It was as simple as making a copy of The Informal Discovery Request from Fight Your Ticket and Win in California. Carefully Nancy filled in the court’s name and address, her name and address, the ticket and citation number and the date she received the Traffic Ticket.

Nancy had not read PC1054-1054.1 or PC19.7. She didn’t understand why the Informal Discovery Request was written in such a legal manner. “It’s certainly more formal than requesting recordings, the officer’s notes, and the reason my charge was changed,” Nancy thought.

What she did know was that she was entitled to the information that the officer planned to use in court.

Nancy decided it was simpler to copy the page than it would have been had she been required to write one of her own. That way nothing would be left out. So copy she did.

Nancy decided to hand deliver her Informal Discovery Request to the justice court and the police station. Nancy reasoned that by delivering it herself she would get the request there sooner. She would also be sure to get a copy of the Discovery Request with the date received stamped on it. Or so she thought.

When Nancy presented her Informal Discovery Request to a clerk at the Traffic Window of the Justice Court the clerk told her that the justice court didn’t have the information she was requesting. The clerk declined to accept delivery.

Nancy was disappointed but was certain the clerk at the police department would accept her request for Informal Discovery. She was wrong. The clerks there were firm in their refusal of accepting her request.

Nancy felt frustrated. Here what she considered a reasonable request and backed by law was rejected by the court and police department clerks. There had to be some local rules or state laws she was unaware of. In any case the police department wouldn’t refuse a certified letter.

When Nancy reread how the Informal Discovery Request was to be sent she couldn’t believe that she had overlooked the part that said that she couldn’t deliver or mail the Discovery Request herself. A friend either had to hand deliver or mail the Discovery Request. That friend also had to sign a proof of service that she had placed a true copy of the Discovery Request in a sealed envelope. Nancy copied the PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL form from the back of the book she was using as the main source of information on traffic tickets. She gave it to her friend who found it easy to fill out because the Proof of Service consisted of nothing more than Nancy’s name,address, phone #,the court ’s name and address, Nancy’s case number, a notation that the People of the State of CA. was the Plantiff against the defendant (a person of one,) Nancy Driver. By her signature her friend (under penalty of prejury) stated that she was at least 18 years old ,lived or worked in the county where the mailing was done, that Informal Discovery Request was the title of the document mailed on February 10th, 2005 to the police department were the officer who had cited Nancy was employed.

The Police Department received the Request for Informal Discovery the day after it was mailed.

Nancy had read that police departments routinely ignore requests for information except for subpoenas. Still she expected she would have her information in 15 days. How long would it take to copy the back of her Traffic Ticket and the officer’s notes after all? Nancy realized that the deadline for the police department to provide discovery was after the date she planned to appear at arraignment.

If Nancy appeared at arraignment on the deadline date in her ticket the 15 days would have passed for Discovery to be provided. She really didn’t need Discovery to enter a Not Guilty Plea and she hesitated to put off an appearance until the last day. What if she couldn’t make it and got charged with failure to appear?

What did Nancy do? POLL

1. Asked for an extension on arraignment.

2. Went to the arraignment as she planned.

What would you advise Nancy to do?

Posted on June 6th, 2007 by paula
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Post #7  Taken for a Ride Where is Nancy going?

Nancy felt uneasy. If the officer could change the traffic violation she had signed to appear in court for to a different violation that she hadn’t signed, what would prevent him from changing it again? What would prevent him from charging her with both violations? Neither violation made sense to her. She thought if she went to the arraignment she could insure that she would enter the not guilty plea to the actual violation she had been charged with.

Nancy reread VC22106 – Starting Parked Vehicles or Backing

VC22106. No person shall start a vehicle stopped, standing, or parked on a highway, nor shall any person back a vehicle on a highway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.

She looked at the traffic ticket the officer had her sign when he had cited her for violation of VC22106 (unsafe starting). Nancy was puzzled. The officer had charged her with a vehicle code violation that required her to be stopped or parked and move onto or back unto the street. She had done none of these things.

Nancy couldn’t tell from the officer’s writing if he meant the street before or the street after she had made her turn. The officer marked she was doing 10 miles an hour in a 30 mile zone. Had she slowed down too soon? Moved to the right too soon? Not turned the corner fast enough? It made no sense.

The copy of her ticket mailed by the police department showed the original citation VC22106 had been crossed thru and the new violation VC22107 had been written in. A Notice of Correction Form included with the copy of the traffic ticket was signed by the officer who changed the violation from VC22106 to VC22107. VC22107 (unsafe turn or lane change) was the vehicle code violation listed on the court docket. Still, Nancy couldn’t figure out how the turn she had made was unsafe. If anything was unsafe, it was the driver behind her following too close. She remembered the relief she felt that she hadn’t been rear-ended as she pulled to the right to make her turn. She certainly hadn’t changed lanes on a two lane main street to meet head on traffic.

Nancy reread VC22107 Turning Movements and Required Signals

22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

Amended Ch. 1996,Stats. 1959. Effective September 18, 1959.

Nancy thought, “A roadway, a highway, a street all have lanes. I stayed in my lane and signaled before I turned at the street the officer didn’t mark on my ticket. The only vehicle that was affected could only be affected if that vehicle was tail-gating me. No brakes shrieked, no rubber was laid, no horn was honked at the intersection the officer wrote the alleged traffic violation had occurred.”

A friend who supported her decision to fight the ticket suggested that she might want to enter a demurrer at the arraignment. After all she hadn’t signed to appear in court for VC22107. The officer hadn’t cited her for violation of VC22107 when he DELIVERED the Notice To Appear to her. The new violation had been delivered in the mail, not in person.

Copy of Notice

40505. Whenever any traffic or police officer delivers a notice to appear or notice of violation charging an offense under this code to any person, it shall include all information set forth upon the copy of the notice filed with a magistrate and no traffic or police officer shall set forth on any notice filed with a magistrate or attach thereto or accompany the notice with any written statement giving information or containing allegations which have not been delivered to the person receiving the notice to appear or notice of violation.

Nancy went through VC40505 word by word. The officer had delivered the notice to appear for violation of VC22106. He hadn’t delivered the traffic ticket for violation of VC22107. He had mailed it to her. “He can’t deliver a traffic ticket twice,” Nancy thought.

In the book Fight Your Ticket & Win in California Nancy read about how to file a demurrer. Her case wasn’t the same as the example given. However the information provided her with the steps she would have to take to present her reasons at arraignment that A Notice of Correction sent through the mail wasn’t a valid substitute for changing the violation she was cited for when the officer issued her the traffic ticket at the time he stopped her.

Nancy considered that she had two choices.

What did she do?

1. Prepare a demurrer
2. Plead not guilty, and save her argument for later

Posted on July 31st, 2007 by crazysuzy
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

About two weeks after she had been cited for a traffic violation Nancy went to court. She went, not to enter a plea, but to become familiar with court procedure and to observe how the judge ruled on traffic tickets.

Hoping she wouldn’t be noticed Nancy took a seat in back of the courtroom. Belatedly she realized that wearing a red jacket and sitting apart from the scant number of defendants in court would certainly bring her to the Traffic Referee’s notice. Surely he would know that she was in court to gain some idea on how to contest her traffic ticket.

The Commissioner wearing a black robe,was positioned at the highest level within the courtroom.Two podiums, an arms reach apart, were centered in front of the traffic referee. These podiums were seperated from the rest of the courtroom by a railing. Access to the podiums could only be had thru a gate which proved awkward to open. The podiums were for use by the officer who issued the ticket and the lawyer or defendant who objected to the ticket being issued at all. Chairs for a jury were to the right of the Traffic Referee while a clerk who recorded the proceedings of the court was positioned to the left. An armed bailiff stood off to one side. Uncomfortable seats on the other side of the railing were mainly used by defendants.

The Commissioner started the court proceedings and Nancy was relieved to see that he didn’t scold defendants like Judge Judy on TV. The cases rolled along, one after another, while the traffic referee decided what the fines and assessments would be. Nancy was puzzled why anyone would appear in court when a fine could be paid by mail.

Nancy found that her plan to make notes was difficult because the traffic referee and defendants spoke faster than she could write and often spoke so low she had to strain to hear what was being said.

Nancy was disappointed that not one of the cases gave her a hint of how she should conduct hers. The person who plead not guilty had a trial set for a later date. Nine were fined and assessed for a total of over $2500.00. No help there. Five she had been not able to make any notation

Because of the calm way in which the cases were conducted in court, Nancy was lulled into thinking that the traffic referee might agree that the violation shouldn”t be changed once signed for, and that discovery should be provided.

That evening she called a friend who supported her fighting her Traffic Ticket. Nancy commented on how smooth the court was run.Her friend wasn’t impressed. HIs comment on the traffic referee being soft spoken while stating what the fines and assessments would be,was “They smile while they grind you up”. Nancy disagreed with her friend, but as they spoke more she thought about how uncomfortable she had felt in court. She realized that because no objections had been raised to what the traffic referee had ruled, he had no reason to be disagreeable.

At a little over two weeks later Nancy appeared at arraignment. Nancy considered the Commissioner’s elevated position in the courtroom as decreasing the validity of what she would say. Nancy didn’t realize why this made her feel so ill at ease until she remembered the childhood game where the highest climber taunted playmates below with I’m the King of the Castle and you down there are the dirty rascals.

When Nancy’s turn came to speak she had no difficulty insisting on her right to a speedy trial even if it would inconvenience the court. She had no difficulty declining the option of traffic school.
Where she did encouter difficulty was when she explained that discovery hadn’t been provided and that one charge had been changed to another after she had signed the traffic ticket. Nancy was discouraged by the Traffic Referee’s reply which she found confusing. At some point she heard his voice, but not his words. He,on the other hand,appeared to Nancy,to be quite comfortable with his explanation why a trial would be held.
What she had accomplished by going to an arraignment, was an understanding that she needed to do more research and she avoided having to post bail.

Later she wondered if she should have asked for a extention on the date she would have to appear.While retaining her right to a speedy trial, she would have had more time to obtain discovery if she delayed the date she would have to enter a plea.She would have prefereed to have the officer’ notes, the video,and other information she had requested before appearing at arraignment.

Next step for Nancy?
Set up a hearing to compel Discovery?
Call a lawyer?
Research for help on the internet?

Posted on November 10th, 2007 by crazysuzy
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

POST #9  VC 40500(d)_ A Lawyer’s Reply

Nancy decided that she needed to read the instructions on Discovery again.

She decided that she would check out information on the internet at the library.

At first Nancy was unfamiliar with computers but with assistance from the reference clerks she had gained a rudimentary knowledge of how to search the internet for information on traffic tickets.
She clicked on The National Motorists Association website and decided to join.
She then called the the number listed and spoke with John Holevoet. She requested that he contact Mr. Dirks,a lawyer listed on the back of the NMA publication for an opinion if the officer who issued her the traffic ticket could change the violation after she had signed for it.

John explained to Mr. Dirks that Nancy had first been charged with a violation of VC22106 but was sent a Notice of Correction changing the violation to VC22107.

Mr. Dirks Replied

March 3, 2005

I find no annotations to this section construing sub-(d). After some thought it seems that the intent of (d) is to make ticket-fixing a crime. What seems to have happened here is the cop realized after the fact that he cited her for the wrong violation and tried to recover his fumble.

The section says the citation cannot be altered before it is filed with the court. I think the proper procedure would have been for the cop to appear in court and formally apply to the court to amend the citation/complaint.

I have no authority for this idea, but she might argue that she agreed to appear to defend the charge originally written on the citation. By amending the charge in violation of VC 40500(d) the cop nullified her promise to appear to answer the original charge. The case violated procedural due process as set out in the vehicle code and should therefore be dismissed.

That approach might not go far, but what the hell. If she can she should get a lawyer on this one.

Some in-depth research might arrive at an even more creative approach.
VC40500
(d) Once the arresting officer has prepared the written notice to appear, and has delivered a copy to the arrested person, the officer shall deliver the remaining original and all copies of the notice to appear as provided by Section 40506.
Any person, including the arresting officer and any member of the officer’s department or agency, or any peace officer, who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed, the face side of the remaining original or any copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the magistrate or with a person authorized by the magistrate or judge to receive a deposit of bail, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer or other officer of the issuing agency, determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate or judge that the case be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and be filed with the court.
If the magistrate or judge makes a finding that there are grounds for dismissal, the finding shall be entered on the record and the infraction or misdemeanor dismissed.
Under no circumstances shall a personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency be grounds for dismissal.

Note:A verified complaint can then be filed by the D.A. if he determines there is sufficient evidence to do so.

Nancy reread the section By amending the charge in violation of VC 40500(d) the cop nullified her promise to appear to answer the original charge. The case violated procedural due process as set out in the vehicle code and should therefore be dismissed.

This statement gave Nancy heart!

Posted on November 10th, 2007 by crazysuzy
Filed under: Detours | No Comments » | Edit

Posted on November 11th, 2007 by paula
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »