My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California
Below is a redacted TBWD I plan to submit. Based on this I have some questions:
Will this defense work?
I am arguing the law and not the facts, how does this generally work out for a TBWD?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: XXX
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21955.
The facts of my case are as follows: On (insert date here) I was at intersection of the South East BART parking lot entrance and Walnut Ave in Fremont CA. I carefully looked both directions for vehicular traffic and established that I could safely cross Walnut Ave. I looked for officers controlling traffic and could not see any between the exit from the south middle BART parking lot and the exit road from the southwest BART parking lot. I crossed Walnut Avenue (near the BART tracks) from the BART parking lot to the south side of Walnut. I was stopped by a City of Fremont Police Officer (I.D.#(insert id number here)) and was charged with violating CVC 21955. The Officer has alleged that I was jaywalking across Walnut Ave. by not crossing in the crosswalk. I believe that while I crossed Walnut Avenue at point C on Figure 1 below, I was not required to cross in a crosswalk and my action was fully legal and did not violate CVC 21955 because crossing at that point did not meet the definition of CVC 21955.
CVC 21955 states: "Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk." In plain English that means you cannot cross the road between two intersections with stoplights if those two intersections are next to each other. Because where I crossed the roadway was between an intersection with a stoplight and one without a stoplight, the “between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices” test of the law fails and I am not guilty of violating CVC 21955.
There are only two places (point A and point D) on the Figure 1 below that could meet the definition of intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices. CVC 445 states: "An "official traffic control signal" is any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction." Further, a stop sign does NOT count as a traffic control signal device. In Quinn v. Rosenfeld [15 Cal2d Page 492] it states that “an unchanging lettered "stop" warning is a sign, not a controlled "stop and go" signal.” In short: the term “Intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices” means intersections with stoplights.
It is no coincidence that point B looks like an intersection from the ground (see figures and 2 and 3). Since I was accused of crossing between two adjacent signal controlled intersections, let me clarify what the law means when it says intersection. CVC 365 defines an intersection as follows: An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.” If either the road from the BART station or the road from the medical complex can be classified as highways then there exists an intersection at point B (between point A and point D) on Figure 1. If there exists and intersection between the two signal controlled intersections then where I crossed cannot be between “adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices”. See Figures 2 and 3.
To establish that an intersection exists using the road from the medical complex, here is my argument. The private road on the south side of Walnut (point B) has a stop sign. (See Figure 3). The presence of a stop sign placed at the exit of the private road/driveway makes point B an intersection. CVC 21360 states: “Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may, within the reasonable exercise of their police power and subject to Section 21353, place and maintain official traffic control devices to regulate traffic at the intersection of a highway and a private road or driveway. Official traffic control devices may be erected at or near such intersection, except no such device shall be erected upon a private road or driveway without consent of the owner thereof. When official traffic control devices are installed and in operation, the private road or driveway shall be deemed a highway only for the purpose of determining the existence and location of an intersection.”
An intersection is also formed from the roadway into and out of the BART parking lot and Walnut Ave. Being owned and operated and maintained by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (a public agency), the exit road from the BART lot (Figure 1-point B) meets the definition of a highway in CVC 360. That definition is: “"Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.”
The roads exiting the BART parking lot are also highways. Further, CVC 21113 part c states that “When a governing board, legislative body, or officer permits public traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds under their control then, except for those conditions imposed or regulations enacted by the governing board, legislative body, or officer applicable to the traffic, all the provisions of this code relating to traffic upon the highways shall be applicable to the traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds.” BART is clearly a governing board. BART publicly maintains the road out of the parking lot. By the above definition the roads through the parking lot clearly meets the definition of a highway. Therefore where that road meets Walnut clearly meets the definition of an intersection.
Please remember that even the alley pictured in Figure 4 comprises an intersection. Figure 4 is that alley that comprised an intersection in People v. Blazina [Crim. A. No. 13581. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles. January 20, 1976]. In that case, because of the alley, Blazina was found not guilty of violating CVC 21955 because there were not two adjacent signal controlled intersections.
I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
XXX, Defendant in Pro Per
Figure 1
Figure 2-From BART exit road looking across Walnut
Figure 3-From exit road from Archstone apartments and medical complex across Walnut
Figure 4-People v. Blazina-The alley above creates an intersection with N Cahuenga Blvd. Crossing by the palm tree is legal.
Below is a redacted TBWD I plan to submit. Based on this I have some questions:
Will this defense work?
I am arguing the law and not the facts, how does this generally work out for a TBWD?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: XXX
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21955.
The facts of my case are as follows: On (insert date here) I was at intersection of the South East BART parking lot entrance and Walnut Ave in Fremont CA. I carefully looked both directions for vehicular traffic and established that I could safely cross Walnut Ave. I looked for officers controlling traffic and could not see any between the exit from the south middle BART parking lot and the exit road from the southwest BART parking lot. I crossed Walnut Avenue (near the BART tracks) from the BART parking lot to the south side of Walnut. I was stopped by a City of Fremont Police Officer (I.D.#(insert id number here)) and was charged with violating CVC 21955. The Officer has alleged that I was jaywalking across Walnut Ave. by not crossing in the crosswalk. I believe that while I crossed Walnut Avenue at point C on Figure 1 below, I was not required to cross in a crosswalk and my action was fully legal and did not violate CVC 21955 because crossing at that point did not meet the definition of CVC 21955.
CVC 21955 states: "Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk." In plain English that means you cannot cross the road between two intersections with stoplights if those two intersections are next to each other. Because where I crossed the roadway was between an intersection with a stoplight and one without a stoplight, the “between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices” test of the law fails and I am not guilty of violating CVC 21955.
There are only two places (point A and point D) on the Figure 1 below that could meet the definition of intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices. CVC 445 states: "An "official traffic control signal" is any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and proceed and which is erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction." Further, a stop sign does NOT count as a traffic control signal device. In Quinn v. Rosenfeld [15 Cal2d Page 492] it states that “an unchanging lettered "stop" warning is a sign, not a controlled "stop and go" signal.” In short: the term “Intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices” means intersections with stoplights.
It is no coincidence that point B looks like an intersection from the ground (see figures and 2 and 3). Since I was accused of crossing between two adjacent signal controlled intersections, let me clarify what the law means when it says intersection. CVC 365 defines an intersection as follows: An "intersection" is the area embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.” If either the road from the BART station or the road from the medical complex can be classified as highways then there exists an intersection at point B (between point A and point D) on Figure 1. If there exists and intersection between the two signal controlled intersections then where I crossed cannot be between “adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices”. See Figures 2 and 3.
To establish that an intersection exists using the road from the medical complex, here is my argument. The private road on the south side of Walnut (point B) has a stop sign. (See Figure 3). The presence of a stop sign placed at the exit of the private road/driveway makes point B an intersection. CVC 21360 states: “Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may, within the reasonable exercise of their police power and subject to Section 21353, place and maintain official traffic control devices to regulate traffic at the intersection of a highway and a private road or driveway. Official traffic control devices may be erected at or near such intersection, except no such device shall be erected upon a private road or driveway without consent of the owner thereof. When official traffic control devices are installed and in operation, the private road or driveway shall be deemed a highway only for the purpose of determining the existence and location of an intersection.”
An intersection is also formed from the roadway into and out of the BART parking lot and Walnut Ave. Being owned and operated and maintained by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (a public agency), the exit road from the BART lot (Figure 1-point B) meets the definition of a highway in CVC 360. That definition is: “"Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.”
The roads exiting the BART parking lot are also highways. Further, CVC 21113 part c states that “When a governing board, legislative body, or officer permits public traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds under their control then, except for those conditions imposed or regulations enacted by the governing board, legislative body, or officer applicable to the traffic, all the provisions of this code relating to traffic upon the highways shall be applicable to the traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or grounds.” BART is clearly a governing board. BART publicly maintains the road out of the parking lot. By the above definition the roads through the parking lot clearly meets the definition of a highway. Therefore where that road meets Walnut clearly meets the definition of an intersection.
Please remember that even the alley pictured in Figure 4 comprises an intersection. Figure 4 is that alley that comprised an intersection in People v. Blazina [Crim. A. No. 13581. Appellate Department, Superior Court, Los Angeles. January 20, 1976]. In that case, because of the alley, Blazina was found not guilty of violating CVC 21955 because there were not two adjacent signal controlled intersections.
I trust in the Court's fairness and ask that my citation be dismissed in the interest of justice.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date:
XXX, Defendant in Pro Per
Figure 1
Figure 2-From BART exit road looking across Walnut
Figure 3-From exit road from Archstone apartments and medical complex across Walnut
Figure 4-People v. Blazina-The alley above creates an intersection with N Cahuenga Blvd. Crossing by the palm tree is legal.
Other Violations: A Valid Defense for Jaywalking Next to Bart Station in California
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire