Posted: 6/3/2009 4:36:00 AM EDT
|
Received a citation for running a red light the other day, not guilty, so I'm pleading not guilty. Any advice from my fellow Texans?
|
|
Quoted:
Received a citation for running a red light the other day, not guilty, so I'm pleading not guilty. Any advice from my fellow Texans? When the ADA calls your name go up and ask for def. adj. Traffic court is easy to navigate, most of the time they hand out deals like candy, such a huge load of cases and little time for jury trials. |
|
Quoted:
Red light camera or officer. What prove is there? What were conditions of situation? Night or day? Why are you not guilty?  Officer (motorcycle). Day time, going down a major road, turned yellow right before I entered the intersection. Officer was going the opposite direction. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Red light camera or officer. What prove is there? What were conditions of situation? Night or day? Why are you not guilty? Officer (motorcycle). Day time, going down a major road, turned yellow right before I entered the intersection. Officer was going the opposite direction. So you crossed the plane of the intersection while the light was yellow. It did not turn red before you crossed that line? If that is true, some things to know. If the officer was going the opposite direction he cannot testify as to the color your light was unless he turned to look or was able to see it in his rear view mirror. That possibility will be determined by his position when he observed you. That said, there are intersections that have small white lights synchronized to the traffic lights for use by officers who are not in position to actually see the traffic light as traffic moves through the intersection. Did yours have such a system? If you can tell me the charge he wrote and any traffic code numbers I can direct you to a copy of the actual law. You will plead not-guilty and be assigned a court date. If you go solo, you will represent yourself. The officer will testify first. Once the prosecution finishes, you can ask the officer questions. You can not make statements or testify or tell your story at this time. You simply ask the officer any pertinent questions. Then you will be able to testify. You will tell your story, and the prosecutor will then be able to question you. The judge will then make a decision based on all of the evidence. Good luck. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Red light camera or officer. What prove is there? What were conditions of situation? Night or day? Why are you not guilty? Officer (motorcycle). Day time, going down a major road, turned yellow right before I entered the intersection. Officer was going the opposite direction. So you crossed the plane of the intersection while the light was yellow. It did not turn red before you crossed that line? If that is true, some things to know. If the officer was going the opposite direction he cannot testify as to the color your light was unless he turned to look or was able to see it in his rear view mirror. That possibility will be determined by his position when he observed you. That said, there are intersections that have small white lights synchronized to the traffic lights for use by officers who are not in position to actually see the traffic light as traffic moves through the intersection. Did yours have such a system? If you can tell me the charge he wrote and any traffic code numbers I can direct you to a copy of the actual law. You will plead not-guilty and be assigned a court date. If you go solo, you will represent yourself. The officer will testify first. Once the prosecution finishes, you can ask the officer questions. You can not make statements or testify or tell your story at this time. You simply ask the officer any pertinent questions. Then you will be able to testify. You will tell your story, and the prosecutor will then be able to question you. The judge will then make a decision based on all of the evidence. Good luck. No such system that I can identify (as I purposely looked today). He wrote "ran red light" as the violation. No numbers or anything to go along with it. |
|
Texas Transportation Code
Sec. 544.007. TRAFFIC-CONTROL SIGNALS IN GENERAL. (a) A traffic-control signal displaying different colored lights or colored lighted arrows successively or in combination may display only green, yellow, or red and applies to operators of vehicles as provided by this section. (b) An operator of a vehicle facing a circular green signal may proceed straight or turn right or left unless a sign prohibits the turn. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles and to pedestrians lawfully in the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk when the signal is exhibited. (c) An operator of a vehicle facing a green arrow signal, displayed alone or with another signal, may cautiously enter the intersection to move in the direction permitted by the arrow or other indication shown simultaneously. The operator shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection. (d) An operator of a vehicle facing only a steady red signal shall stop at a clearly marked stop line. In the absence of a stop line, the operator shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection. A vehicle that is not turning shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown. After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may: (1) turn right; or (2) turn left, if the intersecting streets are both one-way streets and a left turn is permissible. (e) An operator of a vehicle facing a steady yellow signal is warned by that signal that: (1) movement authorized by a green signal is being terminated; or (2) a red signal is to be given. The Code |
|
Quoted:
What kind of questions should I be prepared to ask the officer? If it were me, I would design my defense first. Start by getting why you believe you are not guilty in a logical form. Then ask yourself why the officer believed you ran the light. I would ask questions that established why he believed I entered the intersection on a red light. I might ask: time of day, weather conditions, traffic conditions, his position relative to you. What drew his attention to you, did he actually SEE your light, could he accurately tell from his position if you were in the intersection or not. Is it possible that due to the angle it appeared you were in the intersection when in fact you were not..... I would not make it appear I was calling him a liar by my questions; rather, I would ask questions that allowed for him to have made an honest error. |
|
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection?
Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim |
|
Quoted:
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim That is not true at all. Did you even read the law posted above? As long as your vehicle crosses the stop line before the light turns red, then you are fine. |
|
Quoted:
Negative. You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. WRONG
|
|
Quoted:
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim It's already been said, but that is completely incorrect. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim That is not true at all. Did you even read the law posted above? As long as your vehicle crosses the stop line before the light turns red, then you are fine. Yes I did. I read it in the police academy too. That section says that, when faced with a steady red light you will stop before the stop line. It doesn't say that if you are over the stop line and it turns red you are OK. If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Jim |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim That is not true at all. Did you even read the law posted above? As long as your vehicle crosses the stop line before the light turns red, then you are fine. Yes I did. I read it in the police academy too. That section says that, when faced with a steady red light you will stop before the stop line. It doesn't say that if you are over the stop line and it turns red you are OK. If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Jim You have to stop at the white line and if absent then before the crosswalk when faced with a red light. Now if you past the white line before you're faced with a red light then you are good to go because you were not faced with the red light before you crossed the white line/crosswalk. Yellow states that a green light is being terminated or a red light signal is about to be given, not to stop at the white line. Perhaps they failed to explain the yellow light in your academy. |
|
They taught the lights, all of them.
They also taught us that if a vehicle is in the intersection when the light is red it is in violation. It didn't say whether or not the driver saw the light was red. If the vehicle is in the intersection and the light is red for their direction of travel it is running a red light. The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red and you need to be prepared to stop. Green means you may proceed if it is safe to do so- if the intersection is clear. What academy did you go to? Jim |
|
Where does it say that for a yellow light you need to stop at the white line or before the crosswalk? As you said in your post The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red and you need to be prepared to stop. the yellow light is a warning. When FACED with a red light you need to stop at the white line or before the crosswalk, how are you going to do that if you are already under the traffic light and past the white line or crosswalk?
|
|
Quoted:
If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Really? Where does it say that? It says you must stop before the line (or crosswalk) when faced with a red light. If you are already legally in the intersection when the light turns then you are not required to stop behind that line you already crossed. What do your municipal court judges and prosecutors say? All of the ones in my city disagree with you and would dismiss every ticket written for a vehicle already legally in the intersection when the light turns red. What academy did you go to?
A large one. |
|
Quoted:
Where does it say that for a yellow light you need to stop at the white line or before the crosswalk? As you said in your post The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red and you need to be prepared to stop. the yellow light is a warning. When FACED with a red light you need to stop at the white line or before the crosswalk, how are you going to do that if you are already under the traffic light and past the white line or crosswalk?I did not say you had to stop at the stop line on a yellow light. The yellow light is a warning that the light is about to turn red and you need to prepare to stop. If you are at the line you should not, actually, hit the brakes as you will probably end up stopped in the middle of the intersection and/or cause your vehicle to be rear-ended. If you are in the intersection when the light turns yellow you have enough time to clear the intersection. The yellow light is there so you have a warning that the signal is going to change. If it went from green to red there would be no time for motorists to safely stop. If you are not right at the line you better be stopping. If you enter the intersection, and that light turns red, you are in violation. Whether or not you saw the red light doesn't matter. The yellow light informed you that the light was about to change. As far as I know someone telling a cop that they didn't see the red light has never got them out of a ticket. I learned this in college and in the academy in the traffic control courses, but everyone also learned this in driver's ed and when taking the driving test- at least I did. The yellow has always meant be prepared to stop- not as an entension of a green light. Jim |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Really? Where does it say that? It says you must stop before the line (or crosswalk) when faced with a red light. If you are already legally in the intersection when the light turns then you are not required to stop behind that line you already crossed. What do your municipal court judges and prosecutors say? All of the ones in my city disagree with you and would dismiss every ticket written for a vehicle already legally in the intersection when the light turns red. What academy did you go to?
A large one. The academy I went to served several cities in the DFW area. I don't know if I would call it large but it wasn't small either. As for learning that it was covered in the traffic book. As for the judge and prosecuter- if the light was red and the driver was in the intersection they were guilty unless they could show a very good reason why it would have been unsafe to stop, like a car coming from behind them going too fast to avoid hitting them in the rear if they stopped. Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red. Jim |
|
You're right, it doesn't matter if you saw it. What does matter is that when FACED with a red light you need to stop at the white line or before a crosswalk, and the yellow light is a WARNING that a light is about to turn red. It does not state that you are required to stop when faced with a yellow. Perhaps the white line and intersection is confusing you?
Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red.
As stated in the transpo code, when faced with a red light, stop at the white line or crosswalk. If you enter the intersection before the light is FACED with red you have legally entered the intersection. How many red light tickets have you written like this and the Judge called it good? |
|
Quoted:
Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red. It doesn't have to. Laws generally tell what you can't do. ETA: If your local municipal court judges have chosen to interpret the law in the way that you have described, then they seem to be different than most other jurisdictions. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Really? Where does it say that? It says you must stop before the line (or crosswalk) when faced with a red light. If you are already legally in the intersection when the light turns then you are not required to stop behind that line you already crossed. What do your municipal court judges and prosecutors say? All of the ones in my city disagree with you and would dismiss every ticket written for a vehicle already legally in the intersection when the light turns red. What academy did you go to?
A large one. The academy I went to served several cities in the DFW area. I don't know if I would call it large but it wasn't small either. As for learning that it was covered in the traffic book. As for the judge and prosecuter- if the light was red and the driver was in the intersection they were guilty unless they could show a very good reason why it would have been unsafe to stop, like a car coming from behind them going too fast to avoid hitting them in the rear if they stopped. Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red. Jim COG? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red. It doesn't have to. Laws generally tell what you can't do. ETA: If your local municipal court judges have chosen to interpret the law in the way that you have described, then they seem to be different than most other jurisdictions. Traffic laws are specific as to what you can and can't do. You can't proceed through an intersection if the light is red. What do you think those red light camers are catching? I don't like them but all they have to show is if a vehicle is in the intersection when the light is red. Period. Some jurisdictions may be more lenient, but the law is written that you can't proceed through an intersection if the light is red. It's not ambiguous. I'm not trying to flame you or argue, so don't take this question the wrong way, but have you had any training or are you just reading the traffic codes like what you posted? Like the penal code, you can't just read them and understand everything. The training is necessary, and pretty involved, both in college courses and in the academy. There is also a lot of discussion in those classes like what we are having here. I hope what we are having here is a good heated discussion, and we all keep it civil. I am not wanting to insult anyone. TxCop it seems that there is some variation in the way some courses are taught in the academy. If you went through an academy dedicated to a single dept. like Ft.Worth has your city can choose how those laws are enforced. The academy I went to served several agencies and so taught us just what the law said. Any variation would follow in field training. I found that out with a good ass chewing when I arrested someone for not signing a citation. The arresty was legal- violating the promise to appear, but I was "informed" that our dept. did not do that. I had to contact one of my instructors from the academy to have him tell my chief that it was technically legal but up to our dept. whether we did or not. I was a rookie and learned to just write "refused to sign" and let him explain that to the judge. The law said we could, but we didn't/ This red light situation may be the same. Jim |
|
<<<<<<<<<<<snipped>>>>>>>>>>>
[/quote] COG?[/quote] The other one-TCJC when it was at the NE campus. When I went through we had cops from Red Oak, Hurst, Arlington, DFW DPS, and several others. I think out of 30 of us only one dept. had more than 3 people represented. Jim |
| All the red light cameras around here (Houston Metro area) show the car crossing the white line on red. There is also a short video that the officers check. I have personally witnessed on hundreds of occasions when vehicles are in the intersection (legally), the light turns red and the camera does not take pictures. If that is what you learned in the academy then so be it, thanks for keeping it civil. |
|
Quoted:
Traffic laws are specific as to what you can and can't do. Yes, they are. And the traffic code does not say that a light turning red when you are already legally in the intersection is a violation. You can't proceed through an intersection if the light is red.
The traffic code does not say that. It says you must stop before the stop line or crosswalk when faced with a steady red light. you can't just read them and understand everything.
... The academy I went to served several agencies and so taught us just what the law said. Those are two conflicting statements. You first say that you must have additional training besides simply reading the law, yet you go on to say that your academy training was good because they simply read you the law instead of giving you addition training on it. To answer your question, I have read the traffic code and received a lot of training on it (both text book and field) as well as discussed it with the judges and prosecutors of a very large municipal court. I'm not saying your local jurisdiction does not enforce the law that way as the courts have the purpose of interpreting the law as they see fit. However, if they do, then they seem to be in the minority. ETA: Before I had any training on the matter, I too thought that being in the intersection when it turned red was a traffic violation. My training and experience is what taught me what I know now. Also, those red light cameras are usually civilly enforced and not a good comparison to criminal enforcement of traffic laws. |
|
I hate those camers. At night they flash is distracting.
Around here the camers just seem to take a pic of the intersection. I also agree with most people that it is just to generate revenue. There isn't much deterrent from a camera- like there is with a cop car sitting there. If they are anything like the cameras we use for traffic signals it's a wonder they even face in the right direction. I have had to reprogram a few and have noticed that TxDOT is going back to a loop under the pavement at some of the intersections. The camers get moved very slightly over time- that's why we get to sit and watch nothing with the light not changing. I don't like those cameras either. Jim |
|
Topgun what I was referring to is like people who read the penal code thinking they know the criminal laws. We didn't just read the book in the academy- there was considerable training both there and after on the street.
I went to the academy in '85, so there is a good chance things may have changed a little- like with attorney general opinions. I can't believe traffic laws like red lights could, but I will admit they might have. Our city was not in a minority about this. IBefore I was a cop I received a few tickets for this, and wrote a lot. Noone I knew in other dept's dealt with red light differently- if you were in the intersection and the light was red you got a ticket, or a warning if we felt that was more appropriate. Jim |
| Everything I have been taught in the last seven years (academy and street) is that if you break the plane of the intersection on anything other than a red signal (meaning you enter on a green or yellow), you have broken no law. The issue I see with the argument that if the light changes to red while you are in the intersection classifies it as disregarding a traffic control device is that, if the light turns to red after you cross the stop line, for all intensive purposes an operator would be required to then stop in the middle of the intersection to prevent being cited for above named violation. With that being said, this creates a number of problems including another traffic violation (fail to stop at designated point). Just my $.02 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You said the light was yellow when you entered the intersection. Was it still yellow when you exited the intersection, or had it turned red while you were still in the intersection? Imagine straight lines drawn from the corners across the street. everything within that square is in the intersection. The law states that you must be clear of the intersection before the light turns red. If any part of your vehicle was still within the intersection, and the light turned red, then you are guilty. A lot of people think that as long as it was yellow when they entered the intersection they didn't run a red light. On the flip side you can't proceed through the intersection until it's clear- even with a green light. Jim That is not true at all. Did you even read the law posted above? As long as your vehicle crosses the stop line before the light turns red, then you are fine. Yes I did. I read it in the police academy too. That section says that, when faced with a steady red light you will stop before the stop line. It doesn't say that if you are over the stop line and it turns red you are OK. If you are in that intersection and the light is red you are in violation. Jim Pepperbelly, you are wrong. Show me the law that says if the light turns red before clearing the intersection you are in violation. Not only did I complete an academy, I was a working cop for a decade. AND I can read plain english and comprehend it. |
|
Quoted:
Negative. Show me the specific law.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Show me where it is stated that the driver can proceed through an intersection when the light is red. It doesn't have to. Laws generally tell what you can't do. ETA: If your local municipal court judges have chosen to interpret the law in the way that you have described, then they seem to be different than most other jurisdictions. Traffic laws are specific as to what you can and can't do. You can't proceed through an intersection if the light is red. What do you think those red light camers are catching? I don't like them but all they have to show is if a vehicle is in the intersection when the light is red. Period. Some jurisdictions may be more lenient, but the law is written that you can't proceed through an intersection if the light is red. It's not ambiguous. Negative, the law says you cannot ENTER on red. Period.
I'm not trying to flame you or argue, so don't take this question the wrong way, but have you had any training or are you just reading the traffic codes like what you posted? Like the penal code, you can't just read them and understand everything. The training is necessary, and pretty involved, both in college courses and in the academy. There is also a lot of discussion in those classes like what we are having here. That is all BS. It is wrotten in English and there is no hidden meanings that only become apparant when you attend an academy. I have. I already posted the law. You cannot show where it is prohibited to be in the interesction on a red light because it is not. Your saying it is not allowed does not make it so.
|
|
What I was taught and used is not BS. Why would you say that? I don't know if things have changed, or if there is that much veriation in enforcement, but that is what we did here.
I really don't want to argue but calling what I was taught and trained BS doesn't make sense. I looked on the web for the traffic laws and couldn't find anything to back up what i have said so I am out of this. I am really tired of the arguing. Unless you worked around here and went through the same schools I did you really don't know what I was taught, do you? This is starting to look like some are getting hot about it so I am dropping it. If I can find my old book on traffic I will look through it, but... Not everything we were taught is in a book- that's what the instructers were for- to teach what the book meant. Jim |
|
Quoted:
What I was taught and used is not BS. Why would you say that? I don't know if things have changed, or if there is that much veriation in enforcement, but that is what we did here. I really don't want to argue but calling what I was taught and trained BS doesn't make sense. I looked on the web for the traffic laws and couldn't find anything to back up what i have said so I am out of this. I am really tired of the arguing. Unless you worked around here and went through the same schools I did you really don't know what I was taught, do you? This is starting to look like some are getting hot about it so I am dropping it. If I can find my old book on traffic I will look through it, but... Not everything we were taught is in a book- that's what the instructers were for- to teach what the book meant. Jim Sorry Jim, you have just missed the boat on this one. The law is clear; Chapter 544 of the code Compliance with traffic control device, the one I already posted in this thread Google search for "Texas Traffic Laws" Third link down in Google Search |
|
I will admit I am wrong, but that means that back in the '80s there were a lot of pissed off drivers I gave tickets to who were really innocent.
That is the way I was taught and trained. Every single ticket I wrote was good according to the judge. I really don't know if this is something that may have been interpreted differently years ago, if it's a regional thing, or what. The fact is that I looked at your links and a lot more myself and can't find a single thing to support my argument, and they all show you're right. I may hold off on anymore gratuitious legal opinions for a while. It's been long enough that I might not be remembering everything. I do, however, reserve the right to think I am better looking than you! 
Later, Jim |
|
Quoted:
I will admit I am wrong, but that means that back in the '80s there were a lot of pissed off drivers I gave tickets to who were really innocent. That is the way I was taught and trained. Every single ticket I wrote was good according to the judge. I really don't know if this is something that may have been interpreted differently years ago, if it's a regional thing, or what. The fact is that I looked at your links and a lot more myself and can't find a single thing to support my argument, and they all show you're right. I may hold off on anymore gratuitious legal opinions for a while. It's been long enough that I might not be remembering everything. I do, however, reserve the right to think I am better looking than you!
Later, Jim It's always nice to read through one of these threads and see that someone on the end of it is man enough to admit that they were wrong. Congratulations! Not many on this site have reached your status. Glad I wasn't one of those drivers! I would have been IRRATE, more at the idiot judge than you. |