JCE

Your answer couldn't be any better. It takes a lot of miles on the clock before you see the light. Right is right and wrong is wrong

__________________
Ricali

03 C240 4matic wagon
95 300E 234,000
7 prior 240;s 5 still going
81 300sd gone
65 230sl gone
49 Studebaker Champion
90BMW convert.167,000
60 Dodge D-100

First, "Blau" check out the lyrics to The Rolling Stones' "Can't Get No Satisfaction". Because you won't find any from me here.

One of the most common traffic infractions in California is failure to come to a full and complete stop for a stop sign (or at a red light before turning right). Here's the rule of thumb from traffic safety 101. When you come to a stop you should do so with your wheels behind the stop line, or pedestrian crosswalk if there is one (on their roadtest, driving instructors are required to stop far enough behind the stop line that the examiner can clearly see it). When you are completely stopped (no motion, no wheels turning), you should look to your left, right, and straight ahead again (in that order) to assure yourself that it is safe for you to proceed before entering the intersection. This is sometimes called the "three beat rule" because that's how long it takes to perform it. Three beats.

Your Father was cited for CVC 22450(a), correct? Look it up for yourself online at the DMV website where everyone has access to the complete vehicle code as well as a wealth of other information.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vcpdf/div11.pdf

Here's the law, verbatim:

Stop Requirements

22450. (a) The driver of any vehicle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection, or railroad grade crossing shall stop at a limit line, if marked, otherwise before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway or railroad grade crossing.

Now remember, STOP is defined in the dictionary as:

"...to suspend or cause to suspend activity."

The officer obviously did not feel that your father came to a full and complete stop. In other words, he simply did not STOP, and by not doing so, did not obey the law. And you say that this happened not once, but twice in a row?

So if you disagree with the officer, state your facts and plead your case before us now. It's good practice for court. But from what I've seen, he's better off pleading guilty and requesting traffic school...

I also want to point out that there is no such thing as a "trap" in California. Whether you call it a "speed trap", "red light trap", or "stop sign trap". "Traps" and "quotas" are illegal. No law enforcement agency or officer in California is mandated or required to deliver minimums or maximums in terms of "quotas" of the traffic citations they issue. The only time this urban legend of "quotas" ever comes up is when someone has a case of sour grapes as a result of screwing up and being cited for a traffic infraction.

Traffic enforcement is a neccessity in our society, and that officer was just doing his job. There was no reason I can see to single someone out or be punitive. Whether the officer was there as a result of having stopped to use his cell phone in a clear area, to write down something, blow his nose, or because he was requested to be there by local residents due to excessive abuses of the vehicle code, he was there to do his job as a sworn officer of the court, not to spring a "trap" on someone whose taxes help pay his salary.

Personally, I am sick to death of seeing people roll through stop signs, run red lights, and generally drive dangerously and discourteously. If I had a nickle everytime I witness it daily, well, you can imagine the rest.

Traffic laws, I'm afraid, are, as William Shakespeare once said, "More honored in the breach than the observance."

My last comment has to be on the gross negligence issue of this thread. I can't recall when I've seen such poor spelling, sentence structure, punctuation and warped logic in one thread.

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."

BENZ-LGB

Right there with ya brotha! Not enough adults today are teaching accounability and responsibility. You're a gentleman and a schollar...and they're aint many of us left! (that includes JCE and TX-Bill)

Blau,

Your arguments are weak. At first, I thought you were trying to protect your dad. But then I realized, you are only looking for a way for him to get out of something he did that was wrong. As was said, Stop signs say STOP, not slow down or yield.

The judge is going to ask if your dad came to a complete stop. If he answers no, as you have indicated would be the truth, the judge will find him guilty.

However, in the world of "it depends on what the definition of the word is, is" type of bending and spinning the truth for a favorable outcome, there are those who seek a favorable selfish outcome rather than the truth.

Gotta go, my blood pressure is rising

Bill

__________________
Mr. BILL

91 300E 120K
90 300SE 275K (sold)
92 BMW 525iM 120K
90 BMW 525iA 175K
85 300D 175K (sold)
84 300SD 245K (sold)

JCE,

I stand corrected. If you are not convicted it could also mean the government has not made their case in additional to the possibility that they broke the law.

But you are wrong in saying it is anarchy. Since when it is anarchy to put up a proper and legal defence. How is it anarchy to do the things allow by law. It would be anarchy for the police to violate you basic rights at will.

Already in the case of traffic court I believe that you right of persume innocient is already violated. In traffic court in the abscent of any other evidence the court will accept the word of the officer as fact. In a case like this for you to win you have to in effect prove that the police is wrong. Which mean you have to in effect to prove you innocient. You cannot also ask for a jury trial another basic right violated. In my opinion.

You also made my point when you said the rich power always gets aways with it. Although I don't believe they always get away with it. It believe that it is tilted in they favor.

I also disagree with your point that getting away with crime weakens our legal system. How do you know people who are not convicted did a crime. Are they no prusume innocient. You see the conflict that we have is although we say we believe in the prusume of innocient, we don't live it.

What about they people who get away with technicalities. They get off because the govermnet performed an illegal action. When people get off because the governement performed an illegal action that strengthen the legal system. It is to deter the people who is suppose enforce the law from breaking the law.


Like I said all I am trying to do is to get information to prepair for a proper defence for my dad. I think all you agree with me that everyone is entitle to a proper legal defence. And everyone is prusume innocient until proven guilty. If you believe in these principles we should not have all this other "moral" discussion.

blau

__________________
Silver Honda Accord, 2006
Silver G500, 2003
Silver SLK-320, 2002
Black ML-320, 2000
Bule Porsche 993 Targa , 1997
Silver Merkur XR4Ti, 1987

1. How long did the cop say he was stopped for.

2. How long of a time must one stop before going?

3. Was your father stopped fully at the sign or did he sort of stop almost but not fully and roll through it.

4. could he not see the cop?

If he did not stop fully at all, then he did not stop. If he stopped fully, find the part in the law that says how long he must stop. is it 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? If it doesn't say how long he should stop, you might just be able to get away with that.

If it just says he needs to stop, then if he stopped for 1 second, he would be in the right, but if it says he must stop, look both ways, and then go, well it does take at least a few seconds at least to look left and then right.

Either way, go to the local DMV, pickup the driving handbook, and read up on stop sign laws.

Alon

__________________
'92 300CE - Sold
2004 C240 - 744 - C7 Wheels - Android Radio
2002 C320 - 816 - Sport Wagon

Mr. Bill

How do you know what my dad was wrong or guilty. Is he not prusumed innocient until proven guilty???

Is he not entitle to a proper legal defence?

blau

__________________
Silver Honda Accord, 2006
Silver G500, 2003
Silver SLK-320, 2002
Black ML-320, 2000
Bule Porsche 993 Targa , 1997
Silver Merkur XR4Ti, 1987

When I said my dad was going slow it was an assumption in my part.

Also weather my dad did a complete stop or not I don't know.

blau

__________________
Silver Honda Accord, 2006
Silver G500, 2003
Silver SLK-320, 2002
Black ML-320, 2000
Bule Porsche 993 Targa , 1997
Silver Merkur XR4Ti, 1987

Blau:

1) Read your quote again. You said in effect it was good to get away with a crime "It would be a good thing that you kid try to get you off on a ticket that you properly deserved." That means circumventing or nullifying the law, and the absence of law is defined as anarchy in the dictionary.

2) If you were not presumed innocent, you would not even get a chance to appear before the judge to tell your side. The officer is assumed to be an instrument/witness for the state who observed a crime/violation, and is assumed to have little to gain by telling a lie. The violator is presumed to have much to gain by fabrication, so the balance tips towards the officer. Disprove the officer in a credible manner, and you will have the ticket dismissed.

3) Read my statement again. I did not say that the rich always get away with it in this country. I said that both the rich and the poor sometimes get away with it in this country. (and since there are more poor than rich, then one could argue that the number of poor people getting away with it is numerically larger than the number of rich evading justice). Only the powerful routinely get away with crime in countries with weak or corrupt court systems.

4) Getting away with crime always weakens a legal system. It breeds contempt for the law, and despair in the minds of those for whom the law is the only shield. Either the population as a whole begins to regard the law as ineffectual, and starts pushing the limits to get away with things themselves, or the populace demands tougher laws and harsher penalties to 'put some teeth' in the law. Neither alternative is pretty, and each can lead to excesses that can spiral out of control - mob rule vs a police state at the two extremes.

5) The technicalities that allow people to get away with a crime are legal provisions put in place to help insure that the innocent are not deprived of their fundamental rights. The technicalities are many, complex, and subject to interpretation in courts. You are lucky enough to live in a country where the scales are tipped in preferrance to allowing some guilty to escape to insure that fewer innocent are unjustly treated. There is a difference between not convicting someone who is innocent as opposed to failing to convict the guilty due to procedural error, lack of evidence, reasonable doubt, etc.

6) (And my final comment on this thread) Several people have already given you good advice that will work in court. If you are innocent (or don't have the ability to admit your guilt and pay your fine/traffic school if you did a rolling stop), then go take photos of the intersection, weather reports on visibility for the date/time of the offenses, distance measurements from the officer's location to the srop sign, etc. Prepare graphs and posters. Count the frequency of cross traffic vehicles at that time of day. Put it all together for the judge in a reasonable, logical, polite presentation. Cross examine the officer in a polite manner during the trial. Examine the ticket for any errors. You will probably convince the judge that such a concerted effort is either the work of someone who is convinced of their innocence, or the efforts of a con man with way to much free time.
Complaining about the 'unfair' court system isn't going to beat the ticket, 'Just the Facts' will work. The facts let me beat an unjust ticket, and let me convict a reckless semi driver on a citizens arrest. If you have the facts, you will win. If you don't, you will lose. QED

If your father is innocent, I wish you good luck in presenting your case in court. If otherwise, be aware of the old saying:

"Don't ask for justice. You might get it!"

__________________
John

2003 Firemist Red/grey leather SL 500
2015 Palladium Silver/black mbtex GLK 350
1987 Smoke Silver/burgundy mbtex 300E Sportline (SOLD)

Click to see 87 300E

Alon, please try to read and fully comprehend the information already provided before giving this kind of advice.

I both quoted the vehicle code, and gave a link to the actual vehicle code section that governs this infraction. You won't find this kind of legal detail in the driver's handbook, and the cite is based upon the CVC, not the driver's handbook.

However, for the sake of argument, here's the link to that section of the California driver's handbook:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs15thru16.htm#trafficsigns

Which states:

[color=]"The eight-sided red STOP sign means that you must make a full stop before entering a crosswalk or at a white "limit line." A limit line is a wide white line painted on the street. When a crosswalk or limit line is not marked, stop at the corner. Check for traffic before crossing. Wait until it is safe before going forward."[/color]

Remember kids, "ignorance of the law is no excuse"... :p

__________________

Scott Longston
Northern California Wine Country...
"Turbos whistle, grapes wine..."

I had a friend in ohio that showed up in small town traffic court in a Clown outfit. he was fined the max.+..........
william Rogers.....

Scott,

You may well have pointed those things out. I will admit I have not read this whole thread, because it is just a really long involved thread, and while the information is wise and a lot of it is great info, some of it is picking out the morality of getting out of a ticket and next thing you know Right vs wrong views are being expressed and somewhat trying to be forced onto other people. So I decided to not read that information and post my own response to the original question.

If the law states one must stop and then proceed when safe, does it say that a stop for 1 second and it being safe to go constitues a failure to stop. Does it give a time limit as to how long one must actually stop?

The best thing to do as others have said are to obey the laws as much as possible if not always. Unfortunately, not many will follow the law always, thats just the way things are.

Alon

__________________
'92 300CE - Sold
2004 C240 - 744 - C7 Wheels - Android Radio
2002 C320 - 816 - Sport Wagon

I think those that have advice...reply to this post

if not post another topic and argue away

...here you have a fine collection of individuals comprising the "Mercedesshop Legal Defense Team"....

-fad

blau,

You just don't get it. Your words, "He was in a residential area. He wasn't going that fast."

Are you kidding?!! A residential neighborhood is the one place a driver should be the most careful. There are children, pets, how awful would it be to tell a child you were not going that fast when you ran over their pet. I have fist hand experience in this, I grew up on a corner. A lady on her way to the store ran over my dog. She actuall said she "wasn't going that fast". Or worse yet, tell a parent you didn't see their child dart out from behind a tree.

As far as your other statement as to why police are looking for people running stop signs instead of guarding a building or bridge? See the above.


Regards,

Bill

__________________
Mr. BILL

91 300E 120K
90 300SE 275K (sold)
92 BMW 525iM 120K
90 BMW 525iA 175K
85 300D 175K (sold)
84 300SD 245K (sold)

No Bill,

You don't get. Everyone is entitle to a defence. In fact, the best defence possible. And I am trying to get information from people in that defence. And every one is prusume innocient.

From you high hourse statement you have already assumed he is guilty of running the stop sigh and in fact assume that he was driving unsafe. Why else point out about the dog. You are obviously interjecting you personal experience into the fact of the case to form your conclusion. In fact we have very little information at this point. The only information at this point that we got is that he was cited. He did not even get the citation yet.

The point about him going slow. First, I was assuming he is was. I assume he was going slow because he is normaly a careful driver and would never speed in a residencial area. 2nd, if he was going slow it is harder to tell if an object has indeed come to a complete stop, case in point the minute hand on a clock. I am not sure that argument would help me, but it is a theory in progress.

But, there are not other revelence about him going slow besides showing he was driving safely and that it is harder to distinguish if something have come to a complete stop when it is moving slow.

To be honest I am not sure weather my dad did infact stop. It does not matter to me. It mater what I can do for him. Do I have a morle issue with that. No. Because for me to win I have to prove his innocient (or show the police is in error). Or make so much legal trouble for the police that they would reduce the fine or charge. Do I have a morel issue with that. Again No. That is because if you plead guilty right off you are fine the maximum.

Again thankyou very much for you opinion, even if you can not help.

blau

__________________
Silver Honda Accord, 2006
Silver G500, 2003
Silver SLK-320, 2002
Black ML-320, 2000
Bule Porsche 993 Targa , 1997
Silver Merkur XR4Ti, 1987