dan avoN7

iTrader: (11)

Turning this in on thursday so if anyone could please go over it and make sure I didn't leave anything out or correct an error I made. Also thanks to Gagan for helping me write it (actually writing the whole thing )

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant's Name: Daniel Scott Avon
Case No.: W891033-31
I respectfully submit this written declaration to the Court pursuant to CVC 40902. I plead Not Guilty to the charge of violating CVC 21453(a).
The facts of my case are as follows: While driving westbound on Sycamore Valley Road at 12:03 pm on 08-06-04, I noticed the traffic light change from green to yellow as I approached the San Ramon Valley Blvd intersection where I was to make a right turn. Since I was less than 20 feet from the intersection, I decided that it was reasonable and prudent to proceed through the intersection with caution; I safely cleared the intersection’s corner at less than the posted speed limit as attested to by Officer Springer on my citation. My vehicle was well over the near side limit line on San Ramon Valley Blvd, in accordance with the requirements of CVC 21453(a), prior to the light changing from yellow to red.
Soon after safely making my right turn through the intersection, I was stopped by Danville PD Officer Springer (I.D. #51242) and was charged with violating CVC 21453(a) which the officer wrote on my Notice to Appear as "21453(a) CVC Red Light- Stop."
As I've already stated, my car was well over the near side limit line prior to the light changing from yellow to red pursuant to the requirements of CVC 21453(a). CVC 21453(a) states: "A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line...on the near side of the intersection... ."
From the officer's position on San Ramon Valley Blvd, perpendicular to my position as I crossed through the intersection, it would have been impossible for him to see that my light was still yellow (or to see my light at all) when I crossed the near side limit line as I entered the intersection to make my turn. It is possible that the officer's light on San Ramon Valley Blvd changed to green as I exited the intersection, however, this observation would give him no clear idea of the color of my light as I entered the intersection; the officer's light had to be red as I entered since my light was still yellow.
The distance from where my vehicle was when the light turned yellow to the near side marker on Sycamore Valley Rd is approximately 66 feet. I was traveling a safe, and legal, speed of 30mph. Calculations show that at 30mph, I am traveling at 0.5 miles per minute, which is .0083 miles per second. When you multiply this value with 5280, the amount of feet in 1 mile, you get 44 feet per second. When you take the distance I need to travel to reach the near side marker, 66feet and divide by the rate of speed of my vehicle which is 44 feet per second, you find that I have approximately 1.5 seconds before I reach the near side marker. This was not enough time to brake to a complete stop, so I decided it was much safer to complete my turn while the light was green.
The officer may misunderstand that it is legal to cautiously enter an intersection (cross the near side limit line) on a yellow light as I did; only entering an intersection on a steady circular red light is forbidden by CVC 21453(a). If Officer Springer's light turned green as I cleared the intersection, he may have incorrectly guessed that my light was red when I entered. Since I cautiously entered the intersection on a yellow light, I am not guilty of violating CVC 21453(a) as charged and I ask the Court to dismiss my citation in the interest of justice.
If the court does not find in my favor in this case, I request a fine reduction and a Court assignment to attend traffic school.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

Looks good to me. Didn't check your math tho.. I have successfully fought 4 tickets this way with no problems whatsoever.

-Jacob

mexicanpizza

iTrader: (9)

Don't say that "the officer may misunderstand". Sounds like you're questioning authority (which you are, you just don't want it to sound that way).

And if his judgment says you could have stopped, all the maths in the world won't help. Luckily, they never read these trials by wd, and most get dismissed. Good luck.

Aegon

iTrader: (5)

I would leave out all the "if you multiply by 60 and divide by pi" and just say something like:

I was positioned 66 feet from the intersection and travelling at 30 MPH, which allows 1.5 seconds to reach the near side marker...

Any judge can do their own math to prove the claim. They don't need a step-by-step since they've probably already taken their share of math.

I also wouldn't say "The officer may misunderstand the law...". It insults the officer and the system. Instead, I would only suggest that the events may not have been clear from the standpoint of the officer, and that the officer may have been in a position where he had insufficient evidence to show that you actually violated the law.

But I've never done this before and I'm not a lawyer.

Aegon

iTrader: (5)

Ack! Mexicanpizza beat me to it!

Mexican's don't make pizza. Italians do. What do you want on your pizza? Tacos? Enchiladas? --some comedian I saw on HBO the other day.

wombatsauce

iTrader: (7)

Those are all good comments and good advice. The thing is, it's tricky to try to say the officer didn't make any mistakes when the whole premise is that the officer made a mistake. I have worked pretty hard on my trial by written declaration papers but I think most of the value comes with the officer's lack of inspiration and compensation to reply to the case. The only one of my 4 that were even looked at was a speed-trap case that I actually won. The rest were dismissed for lack of rebuttal.

-Jacob

Aegon

iTrader: (5)

I think my suggested replacement still implies that the officer made a mistake. The difference is that I don't say "the officer misunderstands the law". I think we all know that the officer understands what running a red light is. Instead, I suggest that you portray the officer as not being in a position to properly judge the situation.

AWD 20T

iTrader: (11)

Actually, pizza isn't even Italian. Davon, I agree with the math standpoint.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Take out this: "21453(a) states: "A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line...on the near side of the intersection... ."
That is unnecessary and taking it out makes the previous point more poignant.

Take this out and re-write it: "The officer may misunderstand that it is legal to cautiously enter an intersection (cross the near side limit line) on a yellow light as I did; only entering an intersection on a steady circular red light is forbidden by CVC 21453(a). If Officer Springer's light turned green as I cleared the intersection, he may have incorrectly guessed that my light was red when I entered. Since I cautiously entered the intersection on a yellow light,"

You need to emphasize that the officer could not have known when the light turned red from his position, and that indeed your entire car had cleared the intersection PRIOR to the light turning red.

I've become a bit of an expert at this, so I hope you value the input!

Ex-ricer

iTrader: (2)

That math just made my eyes bleed. Keep it simple. Simpler. Whatever.

Group B

iTrader: (3)

I'm curious about this:

My understanding is that the red light rule, when travelling straight through an intersection, is defined that you must pass the line on the other side of the intersection before the light turns red.

does anyone know if this rule applies to entering a right turn before it turns red?

do you have to completely cross the intersection the same way?

dorifto88

iTrader: (8)

ot.
is your family related to avon products?
i could use some cheap gift ideas for my aunts.

zumnwrx

iTrader: (6)

i lost my case! stupied fremont hall of justice!

they suck not only did they just give a ruleing on a case almost 1yr and half later but im still guilty of running a stop sign...

arg i swear i ran the stop sign, BUT THATS NOT THE POINT DAMNIT!
edgar,

i think im going to apeal it haha just to drag out this case and get my moneys worth... ****um its my right after all

Group B

iTrader: (3)

you can't appeal traffic infractions simply because you lost your case.

you can only appeal a traffic infraction if the court made an objective error in handling your case.

BTDT

Racenut

iTrader: (1)

Without seeing the actual intersection, assuming that the cop couldn't see your light because he was to the side might be reaching. I don't have to be facing the light to tell if it's red, yellow or green, especially when my lane is short and I don't want to get stuck behind someone