Fightin' the Law

BACK STORY

On April 1st, 2004 (seriously, no 'fooling' here) I was cited by a California Highway Patrolman for making a right turn on a red light when the posted sign said, "No Right Turn on Red." I claimed to have never seen the sign, which really didn't matter in his eyes, and was given my first California-issue traffic violation. Since I was working Campus Cruiser at the time of the incident, I decided to swing back around to check out the sign, and found it to be completely obstructed by a tree.



If you can't tell from the photo, the sign you see is actually a "No Left Turn" sign, whereas the "No Right on Red" sign is posted above that one, completely behind the tree while you are approaching the intersection, until about 15 feet from the crosswalk. Now that you know what's going on, I'll continue with the day's events...

SLOW START

After taking the bus and walking a few blocks to the Municipal Courthouse, I came upon a line of seriously like 500 people, all waiting to get inside. The officers would let about 30 or so people in at a time, and although I know it's makes me look like a complete dweeb, I actually counted how long it took for the 'pulse' created by the front to reach the back: 106 seconds. It was a good thing I got there a half-hour early.

After going through security and getting up to the 5th floor for my 8:30 appointment, I waited with the other approximately 65 people around until about 8:50 for them to open the doors to the courtroom, where we checked in with the bailiff and waited yet another 45 min or so for the judge to actually take the bench. It was funny, just like on the tele, he just kinda popped in from outta nowhere and we all had to stand up real quick and salute him. Ok, that last part's a lie, but we weren't allowed to sit until he took his seat. The bailiff let us know that, "The Honorable Kevin A. Ross is presiding and court is now in session." His Honor then went through everyone's case and told some of them that they could go home because the citing officer wasn't present, including an attractive young woman I sat next to when I first entered the courtroom. Man, she was super happy over the news. He called her name and she gave out this little shriek and looked at me with a huge smile as she wished me luck on my case. The judge then told certain police officers that they could leave because their defendants didn't show up, as he raised the accused's fines to at least $450 and issue warrants to others. For those of us still remaining (around 50), the Honorable then let everyone know that many of us were eligible for traffic school, and that if we decided to go through with the trial, we were risking that opportunity if found guilty. When he asked me if I wanted, "Traffic or trial?", I replied with an emphatic, "Trial!" That process cut about another ten or so, which left around 40 trials, times the ten minutes per case the judge said was average. I knew at that point I probably should've eaten breakfast before I left the apartment.

LAWYER SPEAK

At this point, the judge informed all of us that there was another trial which was a continuation from Tuesday and that we were going to be in for a "long day." This trial - The People vs. Ellis, however, was different from other traffic cases, in that each side had a lawyer (in a traffic case, go figure) and they were calling witnesses and crap. Basically, what had happened was the posted speed limit had dropped by 10 mph, from 45 to 35, and the defendant was cited for going 44 because he thought the limit was 45. The current law states that if they are going to decrease speed limit, they must have a report from traffic engineers explaining why, be it to reduce the number of accidents or because of road construction or the like. The defense was able to show that the city had no reason for changing the speed limit, and because they didn't have a legitimate reason, the speed limit wasn't lawfully allowed to be changed, and the speed limit, although posted at 35, was still, in fact, 45. Basically, it was just a lot of bickering between the two lawyers, although they only spoke through the judge. I laughed out loud, however, when the defense attorney, after being chastised by the judge for trying to delay the case, retorted with the fact that he, like everyone else present, was at the courthouse at 8:30, and that the judge didn't even take the bench until 9:35. Surprisingly, the judge accepted what the guy said, although he did say that he was at the courthouse at 8:30 as well, just that he was dealing with some other things in his chambers. By the end of the whole thing, however, the defense created some doubt in the judge's mind because a report the prosecution used to show just cause for the limit change was shown to be false by another report the defense presented which was issued by the same agency (Department of Transportation.) Basically, it looked to me that the defense was going to win their case, but since the judge decided to recess until tomorrow to give the prosecution time to research the defenses contradictory report, I guess I'll never really know. In all, however, it was quite the learning experience and somewhat entertaining.

PEOPLE'S COURT

The judge then proceeded to hear the traffic court cases one by one. The officer and the defendant each would sit, and the officer would talk give the very general details - the when, where, and why. He would also give some extra details which would help prove his case that he was correct to give the ticket. The judge would then ask for the defendant's story, and basically try to find holes in their stories. Although the burden of proof was on the officer, it seemed like most of the time it was the defendant who screwed himself over by giving a story and then giving a different story when asked questions by the judge. I've decided to comment on some of the more interesting/bizarre cases of the roughly twenty or so that I saw.

The very first case of the day was thrown out because the defendant had his friend show up for him. When the judge asked the man if he was the one who in fact received the ticket, the man answered yes. The defendant was about 5'9", 190-200 pounds, and in his mid 40's. On the citation, the man was 5' even, 140 lbs, and about 25 years of age. Things didn't match up, even though the defendant still claimed he was the one who received the citation, at which point the entire court, including the judge, burst out in laughter. It was ridiculous. The judge dismissed the case and issued a warrant for the real offender.

Another case involved a speeding violation. The guy was doing 65 down Crenshaw (a 35 zone) and claimed he should be acquitted because, at the time, his speedometer was broken! In addition to being ridiculous, he was only 12 years old! The judge made him pay a crapload of money, and he's now not allowed to drive until he's 18. Keep Compton safe, Judge Ross!

Another woman claimed - through a court-appointed interpreter - that at the time of the citation, she was trying to tell the officer that the kids whom he was citing no child seats for, weren't hers. He, obviously, cited her anyway after the driver told him that they were her children. Her entire defense lay on the simple fact that she doesn't speak English and that because of that, she shouldn't have been given the ticket. The citation, by the way, was in late May. When the officer responded to her arguments in court, she burst out with a, "THAT'S NOT TRUE!!" At this point, I started cracking up, and the judge asked her if she understood everything the officer had just said. She responded, "Yes, I did, your honor." At this point the judge asked the translator to go home and eventually found the woman guilty. And, just so you know, of the six people who needed a translator today, only one of them actually couldn't speak English. Tax money hard at work, my friends.

The last case I'll comment on involved a guy who was just plain lying, but unfortunately wasn't able to be convicted. The citing officer had been a part of the force for over 25 years, but because he's always been a patrol man and had never been assigned to traffic, and had written less than five tickets in HIS ENTIRE CAREER! He estimated the defendant going 40 mph when traffic conditions were bad due to a double-parked semi and road construction, effectively giving plausibility to the reduced 25 mph speed limit. Since he didn't have proof at the time, he claimed that he told the defendant to slow down when he passed the patrol car. When the defendant didn't obey, he was pulled over for going 35 in a 25. The defendant claimed that first of all, he wasn't speeding, and that secondly, he didn't hear the officer. When questioned further by the judge, he said that he didn't slow down because he didn't think the officer was talking to him. Idiot. After realizing his slip up, he let the judge know that he's been driving for five years and has never been pulled over for speeding, obviously proud of his accomplishment. This brought some more laughter to the court, as the judge commented, "If you told me that you've been driving since 1962 and had never been pulled over, I would be impressed. Personally, I wouldn't brag start bragging until I could legally take a drink." Like I said before, because the officer had so little experience and had no evidence that the kid was traveling at the speed the officer thought he was, the judge had to find the defendant not-guilty, even though he was obviously lying. I felt bad for the officer, but it was fun watching the kid get owned by the judge.

THE PEOPLE v. MCCONNELL

It was finally my turn, but when the judge called my name at just a few minutes past noon. I had the entire event already planned out in my head.

JUDGE ROSS OFFICER BARRETTDAN MCCONNELL

Court is now in session for the People v McConnell, Officer Barrett, please proceed.

Thank-you your Honor. On April 1st, 2004, at 11:15 pm, pursuant to Section 4829.3 of the Los Angeles penal code, I cited the defendant for making a right turn from eastbound 23rd street to the southbound 110 exit towards Adams on a red light, when the posted sign says such a maneuver is not lawful. He was driving a beige Ford Focus and was alone at the time, and after being pulled over, was quite cooperative. He told me that he had taken that turn many times before and never knew there was such a sign posted there at that intersection.

Is the citation compliant with the City of Los Angeles?

Yes, your Honor, it is.

Thank-you officer. Is there anything else?

No sir.

Mr. McConnell...

Good morning, Judge Ross. In addition to being a full-time student at, I work a part-time job for the University of Southern California. I drive for the University as a safety escort for USC students, faculty, and staff from campus locations to residences. Our coverage area is about two square miles, and on the night of the incident, I was working as a Campus Cruiser. I approached the intersection with caution, looking to my left for on-coming traffic as I knew I would be making a right-turn on a red light. Because it was so late, there was no traffic coming off of the freeway, and so after stopping, I made a right turn, saw the patrol car, and proceeded until I was pulled over just before Adams. I was quite confused because I was under that assumption that I had done everything correct, in terms of obeying the red light. An officer of Asian decent first came to the car and told me what I had done wrong while collecting my license the car's registration and insurance information. Officer Barrett came back with the citation and I went on my way. I am here today for two reasons. First, I would like my case to be dismissed. Second, I would like the placement of the sign moved.

Your Honor, on the night of the incident, the sign was not visible due to the fact that the branches of a large tree completely obstructed the sign. In July, the branches were trimmed back to make the sign more visible, but on the night of the incident, they covered the sign completely.

Officer, is this true?

I don't think so.

Your Honor, if I may, I would like to submit a photograph I took a few hours after the incident occurred. (I then give the photo at the start of this entry to the bailiff.) As you can see, the trees covers the sign completely at a distance of about 100 feet. The sign is then not visible until about 15 feet from the intersection. The problem with this is, if one does not know the sign is there and the light is red, one will look left to see if there is any on-coming traffic so that they can make a right-turn on the red light. By the time they are at the intersection, the sign is actually slightly BEHIND them, making it impossible for them to see the sign while at the intersection.

Officer, would you dispute the validity of the photograph?

Your honor, because there is no date on the photo, how can we be sure this was taken on the night of the incident?

Your honor, may I submit another photo, this one taken by satellite imagery (the one below is like the one I labeled) on March 29th, 2004. You can see the tree's immense height due to the large shadow that the tree has cast onto 23rd Street compared to the shadows cast by other things such as cars. The dated picture doesn't show the branches in front of the sign, but gives credibility to the fact that the tree is proportionally broad as it is tall, and that it is possible that branches were in front of the sign on the night of the incident, only a week after this picture was taken.

...Judge looks over the photos for a moment as he thinks to himself...

Is there anything else?

Yes. I assume that the sign was placed there to prevent accidents and keep drivers safe, but I think the current location does not facilitate this. With the assumption that you have the authority to make such a change possible, I think the sign should be moved across the street. Possibly on the traffic light itself, so that anyone at that intersection is sure to see the sign. That is all your Honor.

Officer, would you like to comment?

No, your Honor.

Mr. McConnell, you been successful in creating a reasonable doubt in my mind over the validity of this citation and therefore, I am acquitting you of the charges. You handled your case perfectly and are the perfect defendant. If you ever choose to go into law, you have my recommendation and my job when you pass the bar. It would be an honor and pleasure to work beside you in governing this state's court system. Simply brilliant. Case dismissed!

Ok, so like I said before, that was what I imagined...none of it actually happened. What did happen was when the judge called my name, none of the officers followed me to sit before the judge. I thought it was weird, because if my officer hadn't shown up, I wouldn't have had to sit there for four extra hours. The judge then called on the officer by name, because he knew the guy had to be there too. At this point a CHP officer stood up with quite the bewildered look upon his face and said he was at court for another case and didn't know he was there for mine as well. The judge gave him a moment to look over the citation, while I waited anxiously in the defendant's seat. After a minute or so, the officer told the judge, and I quote from my notes, "I remember writing the ticket, but there is only one sign posted, so I don't really think it's a fair citation." WTF!!? For a second, I thought he was pulling an 8-mile, but then realized that I was going to go home scot-free. The judge had this look on his face which was like, I've never seen anything like this before...YOU want to throw out the case after writing the ticket yourself?! I also thought it pretty ridiculous because the officer was basically admitting that he was writing tickets that he shouldn't write in hopes that people wouldn't challenge them and the city would get their money. I thought about saying something at the time, but decided that it wouldn't be appropriate right before the judge was about to, figuratively, give me my $143 back. I was very happy that I was off, but somewhat disappointed that I didn't get to present my case, or my photos, or bait the officer into admitting that writing a ticket for that sign isn't fair. The judge said they'd mail me a check, but not to expect it for about six to eight weeks eight weeks.

Merry Christmas to you too, Judge Ross!