My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: Arizona
The other evening I turned left out of a grocery store parking lot and was pulled over by a motorcycle officer. He said "you're supposed to stop before pulling out of that parking lot." I said "ok" and nothing else. Then he said "there's also no left turn from there. Did you see the sign?" and I said "no I didn't". He issued a citation for 28-644(a)(1)failure to obey a traffic control device.
The next day I went and looked at the sign in the daylight and there were indeed two signs, both on the same post - a "Stop" sign situated over a sign with a right arrow and "Only" below it.
I have a couple questions. First, since there are several traffic control devices in the area (pavement markings and other signs), and the citation did not indicate the specific one I was being cited for, do I have an argument here for ambiguity? What's strange is he could have cited me specifically for failure to stop before emerging from a driveway (28-856) but used the less specific 'traffic control device' statute instead.
The second question is about the validity of the sign itself. 28-644(a)(1) talks about an "official traffic control device" and the definition from 28-601(12) says:
"Official traffic control device" means any sign, signal, marking or device that is not inconsistent with this chapter and that is placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.
My county has a GIS map showing a property line overlay of satellite imagery. I pulled up the shopping center and it shows the stop sign to be about 6 feet inside the property line of the shopping center. I understand there are easements, etc that could be used to argue the sign is official, but my question is, since they cited me for failing to obey a device that has to have been erected with the blessing of a public body or official having jurisdiction, can I simply say, "the state has produced no evidence that this device on private property has been erected by proper authority."? Or will judicial notice apply here?
My next question is about the fact that I did not see the sign at night. My understanding is that the MUTCD requires signs to be visible and reflective at night. If I challenge the reflectivity (or general validity, e.g. size, height, etc) of the sign, is the state required to demonstrate those specific signs are in compliance?
Thanks for reading.
The other evening I turned left out of a grocery store parking lot and was pulled over by a motorcycle officer. He said "you're supposed to stop before pulling out of that parking lot." I said "ok" and nothing else. Then he said "there's also no left turn from there. Did you see the sign?" and I said "no I didn't". He issued a citation for 28-644(a)(1)failure to obey a traffic control device.
The next day I went and looked at the sign in the daylight and there were indeed two signs, both on the same post - a "Stop" sign situated over a sign with a right arrow and "Only" below it.
I have a couple questions. First, since there are several traffic control devices in the area (pavement markings and other signs), and the citation did not indicate the specific one I was being cited for, do I have an argument here for ambiguity? What's strange is he could have cited me specifically for failure to stop before emerging from a driveway (28-856) but used the less specific 'traffic control device' statute instead.
The second question is about the validity of the sign itself. 28-644(a)(1) talks about an "official traffic control device" and the definition from 28-601(12) says:
Quote:
"Official traffic control device" means any sign, signal, marking or device that is not inconsistent with this chapter and that is placed or erected by authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction for the purpose of regulating, warning or guiding traffic.
My county has a GIS map showing a property line overlay of satellite imagery. I pulled up the shopping center and it shows the stop sign to be about 6 feet inside the property line of the shopping center. I understand there are easements, etc that could be used to argue the sign is official, but my question is, since they cited me for failing to obey a device that has to have been erected with the blessing of a public body or official having jurisdiction, can I simply say, "the state has produced no evidence that this device on private property has been erected by proper authority."? Or will judicial notice apply here?
My next question is about the fact that I did not see the sign at night. My understanding is that the MUTCD requires signs to be visible and reflective at night. If I challenge the reflectivity (or general validity, e.g. size, height, etc) of the sign, is the state required to demonstrate those specific signs are in compliance?
Thanks for reading.
Traffic Lights, Signs and Controls: Arizona §28-644(A)(1) - Failure to Obey Traffic Control Device
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire