Verified answer

I am reading this question differently here. The Officer tells you this sign is posted to "deter traffic from getting off the highway and speeding through the neighborhood as a short cut". A little later in your statement, you say "The only reason I got off the highway exit that morning and made the left turn was because traffic was starting to back up there".

Your action is the exact reason this sign was posted in a residential neighborhood. You were taking a shortcut during prohibited hours.

As far as the sign being small and being a "trap", there is no statute to demand a sign being a certain size. As long as it is posted in sight on the right of way, it is the responsibility of the driver to be aware and alert.

If you do use your argument in court of the sign not stopping traffic from going through the neighborhood, the Judge will smile and find you guilty. My only thought that you might possibly be able to use would be some pictures of the sign while sitting in your car showing it not to be clearly read while driving. I don't know if it will work, but it would be your best shot.

Best of luck and I hope this is useful to you

My friend you should listen to what you say. Better yet read what you wrote: (1) yet there's no sign for people coming from across the intersection. Here you are say there were no signs. (2) Of course the signs were small and the print on them is barely legible, especially when it’s dark. Now you are say that there were signs (3) According to the officer, the signs are there to deter traffic from getting off the highway and speeding through that neighborhood as a short-cut. Here you are saying the officer tells you what the signs are for. My friend pay the ticket and let it go. It is not a trap you just got caught in the act of making an illegal left turn. If I were a judge and you came to me with that story it would be a long long time before you would drive again.

Re read this entire rant in the morning and you will see that you violated the law and got caught. Argue all you want about why the sign was there, but it was there.

BTW, most of the time that type of sign is there is at the request of the people who live on that street. Think how you would like living on a street what for three hours a day becomes a NASCAR raceway.

That's messed up if they weren't in the middle of performing an official duties. If they are doing as you say, just sitting there enforcing this particular law, they are abusing something meant to help them, to keep them safe when they are working an accident or responding to an emergency when they can't avoid parking near or on the roadway. Explain what happened to the judge. Let him decide. Maybe, then you will hear the whole story, why the cop was there with his lights on. Radio logs will tell you if he was just sitting there or responding to a a situation you didn't know about, like maybe a road obstacle. Tell the judge what you thought. If the cops in the area are abusing this law, the judge will most likely take some action and dismiss your ticket. In my state, they can't just create a traffic hazard. Cops use their lights and sirens per policy. They have to have a reason for their lights and/or sirens being on. Also, if my state, if you pass and overtake an emergency vehicle with lights at reasonable and prudent speed considering the traffic, roadway, and weather conditions, you won't get a ticket especially if you were already going slow. However, my state is more liberal and protects the rights of the citizens more than them red neck Bible belt states. One of my pet peeves is a cop stopping in the middle of the road a car for a simple traffic offense when a lite parking lot is in sight and the person is not DUI. Cops should always park in safe places and with light, so they can see what is happening, if at all possible. I hate when they block 1/2 the street for 15 minutes and put themselves in danger, jumping in and out of their car, and cars all around them are hitting their brakes on the ice; all for a headlight out or another minor offense. I have seen cops stop people on blind corners, putting the person they stopped and the cop in danger. I have heard some cops say, "I am a cop, I can stop anywhere I want." Really now, that is not what the academy is teaching cops about traffic stops and civil liability. No instead, we have to make "move over" laws. And, in some instances, that law is necessary for the idiots that don't slow down to a reasonable speed and use commonsense when emergency personnel are responding to a bad car accident. But cops should get cited for being stupid and creating unneeded traffic hazards. I have seen several cops being charged/sued in civil court for running a stop light with the sirens and lights on and not yielding to the people already in the intersection or making sure the intersection wasn't cleared first. Others cops have faced criminal charges for hitting people with their lights and sirens on when they didn't yield to cross traffic. For some reason, cops think with their lights and sirens activated, they get the whole road, all of the time, and they aren't liable. Oh, how wrong, especially in civil court. Those laws aren't going to stop the drunks that hit cops who park as safe as they can for the situation. For some reason, drunks love those rotating lights, more so than the flashers.

That was the dumbest question I've ever seen on YA.

The sign is placed there by ordinance or state law, and the officer has an obligation to enforce the law.

You violated this law and got caught. Period.

Accept responsibility for your own actions and quit blaming others.

Go ahead and try your 'excuse' in court.. I'm sure the judge will be very receptive to your argument.

Don't "argue to in court is that these sign don’t stop traffic from going through that neighborhood, but rather give cops an excuse to pass out tickets." The Judge(s) do not care about "excuse" for the cop to pass out tickets.

Do argue that you cannot see the sign because:

1) a truck was in front of you, and the sign was blocked

2) the sign was facing NOT to you

3) the sign was damaged

4) the sign's paint was un-clear

5) the sign was un-clear due to sunlight reflection.

etc.

But, do NOT tell the Judge that the police is at fault, or

the sign is for the police to issue tickets.

This will piss off the Judge at the court trial.

Besides, you should do Informal Discovery Request,

and request for Trial By Written Declaration.

-------

I was able to beat seven (7) California tickets in the past 2 years. All by the method of Trial By Written Declaration (TBWD). You just need to call the court, and ask to contest your ticket by TBWD. You will need to download a form TR-205 and mail out the bail (ticket payment), and explain your reason in TR-205. With TBWD, you don't have to show up at the courthouse. Make sure you mail TR-205 about 2 weeks before your ticket due date.

If you were found guilty, you still have one more chance to appeal which is called Trial de Novo (TDN).

At TDN, you have to show up in court , and if the Officer did not show up, you win. If he show up, do this:

1) Ask the Judge for his TBWD since he is to turn in his TBWD within one month.

2) Use your reasonings from TBWD, and attack/corss examine the Officer.

For more details and examples, visit the website below:

Yeah, you've got a solid argument there. The judge probably will be almost as impressed as the judge to whom a defendant argued "I couldn't have been speeding because I was drinking and I always drive slowly when I'm drinking."