• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Ticketed for not yielding to a ped (sting op)

1RUN said:
Hmmm - interesting... Any LEO's care to comment on this new wrinkle?
Click to expand...

What new wrinkle?

If the SF procedure is anything like the procedures posted by LEOs on barf in the past, B is not an issue.

As for C, its already been established that the rider F-ed up: a car in the other lane ahead of him managed to slow and stop in time.

The OP didn't. He's welcome to try and fight it. He might very well win.

But that doesn't change the fact that because he didn't slow earlier (when the other car began to slow), he ended up acting in the "Least unsafe unsafe manner" when he went through the crosswalk.
 
If you want to beat the ticket, hire a real attorney because SFPD will have their shit in order, especially for a sting op like this. (in comparison, if you got busted for some random offense you would have a lot better chance of walking because there is way less evidence and witnesses.)

A good attorney will be familiar with the judges and officers; and can put your case in a position where you have a better chance of winning.

Be prepared to explain to the judge what you meant when you said "I understand why you pulled me over. There was a ped in the cross walk as I passed through"

Things not in your favor:
Daylight, lots of visibilty
At least 3 professional witnesses against you
You admitted guilt (this is bad)

Things in your favor:
You're a nice guy :)
You mentioned a safety concern for yourself to the citing officer
 
nweaver said:
What new wrinkle?

If the SF procedure is anything like the procedures posted by LEOs on barf in the past, B is not an issue.

As for C, its already been established that the rider F-ed up: a car in the other lane ahead of him managed to slow and stop in time.

The OP didn't. He's welcome to try and fight it. He might very well win.

But that doesn't change the fact that because he didn't slow earlier (when the other car began to slow), he ended up acting in the "Least unsafe unsafe manner" when he went through the crosswalk.
Click to expand...

Why are you so angry? One would think if you cared as much as your emotional responses might suggest that you would take the time to actually read more carefully.

The point of contention is this:
- No where in this vehicle code does it state that in order to obey said CVC one must stop. No where.

- It does state, however, that the vehicle has the responsibility to do the SAFEST THING given a specific situation. As i stated, I saw the ped and assessed the SAFEST thing was to proceed through the intersection - safest for both him and myself. I was over 1.5 lanes away from the ped.

- If the officer wanted to cite me for not stopping when another vehicle had stopped the proper CVC would have been 21951 as stated above.
 
Last edited:
nvp said:
Why are you so angry? One would think if you cared as much as your emotional responses might suggest that you would take the time to actually read more carefully.

The point of contention is this:
- No where in this vehicle code does it state that in order to obey said CVC one must stop. No where.

- It does state, however, that the vehicle has the responsibility to do the SAFEST THING given a specific situation. As i stated, I saw the ped and assessed the SAFEST thing was to proceed through the intersection - safest for both him and myself. I was over 1.5 lanes away from the ped.

- If the officer wanted to cite me for not stopping when another vehicle had stopped the proper CVC would have been 21951 as stated above.
Click to expand...

It says to yield, that means stop -- or not go in front of. You failed to yield to the pedestrian when you crossed his path.

The officer could have cited you for 21951, and it would have been a $300 more expensive ticket. Just FYI.

You're guilty, get over it.
 
OP, I think that since you were cited for 21950, your explanation of why you took the action you took *might* create enough reasonable doubt for the judge based on subsection (C). A good chance it won't, but some judges may buy it.

The officer could always request that the charge be amended to 21951 and in that case I see no possible reasonable doubt that you would be found guilty.
 
offtopic a bit

why does it seem some of you LEOs post here show a bit of bitterness and looking down on questions and posts. I actually spent time reading this whole thread. And I am amazed you treat some of the posts with such bitterness.

People come in here for help not to be told your guilty get over it. It is like pulling teeth to get some of you guys to actually consider that maybe a citation could be not deserved.


To me just reading it sounds like the poster got a raw deal. Problem with laws like this ped cross is that it does take a lot of the responsibility away from the pedestrians ( and bicyclists- OMG they are the worst why dont the friggin get cited) and its obvious a "sting" is trying to lure people into do the wrong thing. Sounds like the OP did not just go blasting through and that he did what was the safest thing -- why ticket after that explaination this would be a good case for a warning dont you think?

tickets dont correct the problem. Sometimes ( as in this case) a warning and a short discussion from an officer would have made the point much better.

As for fighting the ticket courts are stacked against you. I would fight it or plead with explanation if possible. That is what I had to do for my last bogus ticket. It would have cost me too much money to fight it.
 
MellowYellow said:
offtopic a bit

why does it seem some of you LEOs post here show a bit of bitterness and looking down on questions and posts. I actually spent time reading this whole thread. And I am amazed you treat some of the posts with such bitterness.

People come in here for help not to be told your guilty get over it. It is like pulling teeth to get some of you guys to actually consider that maybe a citation could be not deserved.


To me just reading it sounds like the poster got a raw deal. Problem with laws like this ped cross is that it does take a lot of the responsibility away from the pedestrians ( and bicyclists- OMG they are the worst why dont the friggin get cited) and its obvious a "sting" is trying to lure people into do the wrong thing. Sounds like the OP did not just go blasting through and that he did what was the safest thing -- why ticket after that explaination this would be a good case for a warning dont you think?

tickets dont correct the problem. Sometimes ( as in this case) a warning and a short discussion from an officer would have made the point much better.

As for fighting the ticket courts are stacked against you. I would fight it or plead with explanation if possible. That is what I had to do for my last bogus ticket. It would have cost me too much money to fight it.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And I agree... within an outside of the context of this thread. I have requested a written declaration as the court procedures to get a trial in SF is so extremely prohibitive (for those of us that work for a living).

We'll see what happens. Thanks for everyone's input.

p.s. How is it possible that an officer can "amend" a ticket to another CVC violation because they made a mistake? Talk about the deck being stacked against us... Je-sus.
 
The LEO's do come over here and spend some time to explain from their point of view. If you want to argue with them and tell them they are wrong, that is your prerogative. However the point of the LEO forum IS for LEO's to comment on these matters, not for them to tell you what you want to hear or face insult and ridicule.
 
nvp- sorry if you already mentioned this but do you qualify for traffic school? If so take it. You can't use traffic school once you try to fight a ticket. to win this one you may have to put the system on trial. Break down the department's strategy for these sting operatins. Its gonna be tough to make your point. If the sting is still going maybe you can video tape how the officers proceed into the intersection. Also FYI I believe if you lose the written trial you can request a new trial and go into court. Good luck.
 
yes AFM199 dude there are insults that fly at the LOEs also which is not cool.

Just goes to show you LEOs are people too
 
I do want to thank everyone for their input and lively debate (especially the LEO's). I will let you know the outcome either way.

Thanks again.
 
Var said:
nvp- sorry if you already mentioned this but do you qualify for traffic school? If so take it. You can't use traffic school once you try to fight a ticket. to win this one you may have to put the system on trial. Break down the department's strategy for these sting operatins. Its gonna be tough to make your point. If the sting is still going maybe you can video tape how the officers proceed into the intersection. Also FYI I believe if you lose the written trial you can request a new trial and go into court. Good luck.
Click to expand...

You can if the judge offers it to you. Ive been in court rooms waiting for my case to be heard and seen the judge offer people traffic school after they have tried to fight their ticket and lost.
 
You give up your right but that's good to hear. Never heard of that before.
 
Yeah I think they purposely hire difficult people for the clerical positions and generally make the entire process a pain-in-tha-ass. It seems like they genuinely want to make the experience as unpleasant as possible.

nvp said:
... I have requested a written declaration as the court procedures to get a trial in SF is so extremely prohibitive (for those of us that work for a living).
Click to expand...
 
nvp said:
p.s. How is it possible that an officer can "amend" a ticket to another CVC violation because they made a mistake? Talk about the deck being stacked against us... Je-sus.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that the officer made a mistake, as either violation could apply. It just seems like 21951 would be more solid in this case.

An officer could always amend a citation at any time before the trial by filling out and mailing a citation amendment form. During the trial, the officer could ask the judge to have the charge amended to a different charge, but that would be up to the judge hearing the case.

By pleading not guilty and fighting a ticket in court, a person does give up any guaranteed option they might have for attending traffic school. I have seen judges offer traffic school after a person is found guilty, but they don't have to. If that is the case, it is best to ask for it up front (if found guilty) rather than waiting until after and have the judge simply say no. The last traffic court case I had, the driver was found guilty and, based on the circumstances, the judge decided to go ahead and offer the defendant the option of traffic school. Oddly enough, the guy declined and requested to simply pay the fine. Go figure.
 
Ticket DISMISSED!!!

Yes, this is how long it has taken to resolve this issue with the SF courts.

I chose the route of written declaration. So everyone knows, this is a good way to go since you don't have to show up to the Bryant building quite so many times and if you are not happy with the decision, you still have the right to an in-person trial (funny they never make this part clear). They, no surprise, found me "guilty" based on my written declaration. It took them over TWO months to review one sheet of paper and mail me the decision.

Also important to note, the intersection in question (Blake and Geary) had a traffic light installed only 4 weeks after the sting operation, with ped crossing lights and all. So, the sting would not even be possible any longer.

Anyway, I went to court yesterday and saw the officer there, but I was ready with my case and related evidence. We filed into the court room and there were about 3 times more people than chairs. People were herded away from the door (standing), away from the clerk desk (at the front) and back again. Meanwhile the bailiff (who clearly hates his job) was diligently telling us all the things we couldn't do during the next 3+ hours - drinking water or anything, reading ANYTHING, keeping our phones on (even in silent mode), etc etc. They really make it as torturous as possible. How would I disrupt the courts by reading a book?

So, I saw my officer approach the desk, say something, then he slip out the side door. I just thought that he was checking when I would be called so he could come back. They began calling role and I was the 3rd person called.... DISMISSED BITCHES!!!

So, to all of you (especially the LEO's) who provided constructive input... thank you very much :thumbup. To all you formatted "you-broke-the-law-suck-it-up-and-stop-whining" post-mongers :twofinger

Anyway, I said I would let you all know what happened either way, so have a good one peeps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top