just got a ticket for "impeding traffic" who do I call?
05-29-09, 03:45 PM
#126
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,259
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4245 Post(s)
Liked 1,351 Times
in
937 Posts
Here you go:
I don't know if it's totally applicable in CA (check with a lawyer familiar with bicycle law if this looks like it'll get ugly), but make sure you read about this case, it's considered relevant in most of these cases.
https://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/e...trotwoodvselz/
I'm pretty sure this won't go anywhere, but be careful anyway.
https://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/e...trotwoodvselz/
I'm pretty sure this won't go anywhere, but be careful anyway.
05-29-09, 03:53 PM
#127
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Even if they were traveling slower than motor traffic typically moves and other drivers were being significantly delayed by them, they still have not violated the impeding traffic law, because said law only applies to ureasonably slow operation of those types of motor vehicles capable of safely traveling at the normal speed of motor traffic under the existing conditions. For example, a farm tractor operator is exempt from this law even though a tractor is a motor vehicle.
There is a different statute that requires operating to the right when traveling under the maximum posted speed limit. However, that is not the impeding traffic law.
There is a different statute that requires operating to the right when traveling under the maximum posted speed limit. However, that is not the impeding traffic law.
But you may be right about California (I haven't looked at the statute for purposes of this discussion).
05-29-09, 05:48 PM
#129
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,969
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,532 Times
in
1,043 Posts
I don't think we will find out from the OP what, if anything, prompted the LEO actions. Presumably the judge will if the OP decides to open up that can of worms when he appears in traffic court for the ticket. I make my assumptions from the OP's chosen moniker and the previous advice he has given other posters on other threads to invoke his name when in a dispute.
05-29-09, 06:26 PM
#130
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Watching all of you on O.B.I.T.
Posts: 2,023
Bikes: Bridgestone RB-1. Nicely restored
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
6 Posts
I'll agree with what other members have already posted; You need to lawyer up. This sounds pretty bogus.
And these were L.A. County deputies, is that right? I thought they were some of the better ones.
And these were L.A. County deputies, is that right? I thought they were some of the better ones.
05-29-09, 06:46 PM
#131
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I don't think we will find out from the OP what, if anything, prompted the LEO actions. Presumably the judge will if the OP decides to open up that can of worms when he appears in traffic court for the ticket. I make my assumptions from the OP's chosen moniker and the previous advice he has given other posters on other threads to invoke his name when in a dispute.
OP: "EatMyA**"
And the rest is history...
05-29-09, 07:35 PM
#132
Senior Member
There's an Oregon case in which it was (allegedly) held that the impeding traffic statute does apply to cyclists. I don't really know whether or not Oregon is the only state in which the law has been applied that way.
But you may be right about California (I haven't looked at the statute for purposes of this discussion).
But you may be right about California (I haven't looked at the statute for purposes of this discussion).
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
This is the California law for impeding traffic which is what I assume EMA was cited for disobeying. Unlike some other states' laws, California does not explicitly exclude any vehicles in their law. In the states that I'm more familiar with, this law (a very similar form of it) only applies to motor vehicles.
In either case, however, if you put any effort into interpretting the law, especially if you consider the other laws on the books, you will clearly see that this law was not intended to be used against drivers whose vehicles are incapable of attaining "normal" speeds. The wording of the law implies that the driver of the slow moving vehicle is intentionally going slower than possible in order to block traffic. While a cyclist is capable of doing this, EMA clearly was not. Even if there was other traffic around, EMA could not have been cited using this law as he was proceeding at a safe speed for his vehicle (a speed that he can reasonably maintain).
05-29-09, 07:45 PM
#133
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Ahhhh. I see. Earlier on in this thread there was some argument as to whether or not just being on a road subjected you to implied consent for an actual search of your bike or car, not your body. I think pretty much everyone understands the implied consent law as it relates to BAC testing. My argument was that there is no implied consent law in any state for a physical search of either a bike or a car as it would be unconstitutional.
05-29-09, 09:28 PM
#134
Joyously Phred
Join Date: May 2008
Location: 600 miles from the nearest flat road
Posts: 126
Bikes: Raleigh Passage 3.0, Giant Halfway 2007 folding, Trek Lime Easy-Step
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I agree with not just rolling over for the cops, but I also see merit in just letting them do it so that they are happy - it's not like they were going to find anything.
How about this: "Officer, I normally would not consent to a search, but since I've got nothing to hide I will waive my rights just so that you don't get all upset and so that I can get on my way quicker."
How about this: "Officer, I normally would not consent to a search, but since I've got nothing to hide I will waive my rights just so that you don't get all upset and so that I can get on my way quicker."
What makes it any different for people to be ok with getting in line to be searched, right down to the skivvies with hands and computer scanners before they board a plane by fellow civilians who're just wearing a uniform and carrying a wand, but steadfastly belligerent about having a sworn officer simply look in a bag to rule out that you're carrying a weapon? How is either scenario any more acceptable or worse, yet I don't hear people complaining that the airplane search process is over-the-top? It's just funny what people latch onto as being priority...we're fine with being asked to leave our backpacks behind when we go to a stadium, the list is endless of the things we're ok with.
Reasonable people would honor the request because it's part of being a citizen - I know - a shocker, right?! Just like jury duty, we may not like it, but the cops don't need to waste time haggling with the responsible folks when the people who are really hiding bad things are also going to give them a hard time. You can't insist they throw the book at the "bad guys" and then cry foul when you're affected. If you've got nothing going on, it's not going to diminish your rights to consent to it. If you were concerned about the deputies not respecting your property, you have the right to ask for a third party/one of the probable dozens of people who were watching from the street, to be present while it happened as witness. End of story. They don't find anything, they leave you with the traffic ticket, you and they have 1h45 minutes more of the day to spend as you see fit, you dispute the eventual ticket, it gets torn up if you TRULY weren't doing something funky in the traffic lane or answering questions in a way to make them think your judgement was impaired, etc.
05-30-09, 12:47 AM
#136
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Even if they were traveling slower than motor traffic typically moves and other drivers were being significantly delayed by them, they still have not violated the impeding traffic law, because said law only applies to ureasonably slow operation of those types of motor vehicles capable of safely traveling at the normal speed of motor traffic under the existing conditions. For example, a farm tractor operator is exempt from this law even though a tractor is a motor vehicle.
There is a different statute that requires operating to the right when traveling under the maximum posted speed limit. However, that is not the impeding traffic law.
There is a different statute that requires operating to the right when traveling under the maximum posted speed limit. However, that is not the impeding traffic law.
There's an Oregon case in which it was (allegedly) held that the impeding traffic statute does apply to cyclists. I don't really know whether or not Oregon is the only state in which the law has been applied that way.
But you may be right about California (I haven't looked at the statute for purposes of this discussion).
But you may be right about California (I haven't looked at the statute for purposes of this discussion).
22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
This is the California law for impeding traffic which is what I assume EMA was cited for disobeying. Unlike some other states' laws, California does not explicitly exclude any vehicles in their law. In the states that I'm more familiar with, this law (a very similar form of it) only applies to motor vehicles.
In either case, however, if you put any effort into interpretting the law, especially if you consider the other laws on the books, you will clearly see that this law was not intended to be used against drivers whose vehicles are incapable of attaining "normal" speeds. The wording of the law implies that the driver of the slow moving vehicle is intentionally going slower than possible in order to block traffic. While a cyclist is capable of doing this, EMA clearly was not. Even if there was other traffic around, EMA could not have been cited using this law as he was proceeding at a safe speed for his vehicle (a speed that he can reasonably maintain).
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22400.htm
This is the California law for impeding traffic which is what I assume EMA was cited for disobeying. Unlike some other states' laws, California does not explicitly exclude any vehicles in their law. In the states that I'm more familiar with, this law (a very similar form of it) only applies to motor vehicles.
In either case, however, if you put any effort into interpretting the law, especially if you consider the other laws on the books, you will clearly see that this law was not intended to be used against drivers whose vehicles are incapable of attaining "normal" speeds. The wording of the law implies that the driver of the slow moving vehicle is intentionally going slower than possible in order to block traffic. While a cyclist is capable of doing this, EMA clearly was not. Even if there was other traffic around, EMA could not have been cited using this law as he was proceeding at a safe speed for his vehicle (a speed that he can reasonably maintain).
811.130 Impeding traffic; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of impeding traffic if the person drives a motor vehicle or a combination of motor vehicles in a manner that impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §569; 1985 c.16 §288; 1989 c.433 §1; 1991 c.482 §18; 1995 c.383 §45]
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation.
(3) Proceeding in a manner needed for safe operation includes but is not necessarily limited to:
(a) Momentarily stopping to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn.
(b) Momentarily stopping in preparation of, or moving at an extremely slow pace while, negotiating an exit from the road.
(4) A person is not in violation of the offense described under this section if the person is proceeding as part of a funeral procession under the direction of a funeral escort vehicle or a funeral lead vehicle.
(5) The offense described in this section, impeding traffic, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §569; 1985 c.16 §288; 1989 c.433 §1; 1991 c.482 §18; 1995 c.383 §45]
05-30-09, 01:58 AM
#137
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I still would like to know if the OP told the cop before or after the cop asked to search him that he wouldn't consent to a search. If it was before the cop even mentioned searching him, while I disagree with being searched, I can see how it could be seen by the cop as strange and confrontational behavior.
05-30-09, 02:41 AM
#138
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That is not at all uncommon. He was not under arrest and was probably in the front passanger seat. In Iowa when a state trooper pulls you over for speeding they put you in the squad car when they write the ticket and to show you the recorded speed they clocked you at. I think this may be more for safety reasons then anything else. Iowa State Troppers also approach your car on the passenger side as well, again I think for safety reasons.
05-30-09, 03:00 AM
#139
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
sure. the quick answer was that if you are searched and you did not give consent they CANNOT USE IT AGAINST YOU in court. If you give consent they can use it against you, even if it has nothing to do with what you were stopped for. That alone is enough reason for me.
The more complicated answer is that they will look for anything that is not only illegal but circumstantial. Even if you have NOTHING illegal at all. for example say you are one of those guys that likes to go to the gym and take creatine or something. if they find that in your car they can take you to jail and hold you there until the lab results. That could take several days depending on the circumstances. Thats just one example of many.
They also gave me the same advice in regards to blood tests when stopped for DUIs'. they said never get them because they will look for ANYTHING suspicious (notice I didnt use illegal, just suspicious) not just alcohol. They'll try to bust you even if you are being prescribed legally. The way they see it is "we'll sort it all out in court".
Same thing for home searches. They said never to let them in. if they want to talk and you want to be polite walk outside and LOCK YOUR DOOR BEHIND YOU. Because they will look for ANYTHING they can suggest charging you with. Have guns in your house? Guess what you can expect to get hassled for that. thats just one example.
Same thing for the car if they ask you to step out. lock it behind you.
And to go into more detail the cops (LAPD and El Monte PD) did advice me to consent to searches whenever I was asked, but at the end of our conversation when I asked them if they would ever consent for a police officer if another department, the answer was NO! (well more like **** no!)
The more complicated answer is that they will look for anything that is not only illegal but circumstantial. Even if you have NOTHING illegal at all. for example say you are one of those guys that likes to go to the gym and take creatine or something. if they find that in your car they can take you to jail and hold you there until the lab results. That could take several days depending on the circumstances. Thats just one example of many.
They also gave me the same advice in regards to blood tests when stopped for DUIs'. they said never get them because they will look for ANYTHING suspicious (notice I didnt use illegal, just suspicious) not just alcohol. They'll try to bust you even if you are being prescribed legally. The way they see it is "we'll sort it all out in court".
Same thing for home searches. They said never to let them in. if they want to talk and you want to be polite walk outside and LOCK YOUR DOOR BEHIND YOU. Because they will look for ANYTHING they can suggest charging you with. Have guns in your house? Guess what you can expect to get hassled for that. thats just one example.
Same thing for the car if they ask you to step out. lock it behind you.
And to go into more detail the cops (LAPD and El Monte PD) did advice me to consent to searches whenever I was asked, but at the end of our conversation when I asked them if they would ever consent for a police officer if another department, the answer was NO! (well more like **** no!)
Last edited by EatMyA**; 05-30-09 at 04:10 AM.
05-30-09, 03:06 AM
#140
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Good thing you brought this up because I did offer (I was wrong when I said they asked). I offered when the guys buddy was ripping my bags up. "yeah well... its not up to you" was the response.
05-30-09, 03:10 AM
#141
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
On the 12th time the page asked me to "choose another nickname" in frustation I typed "eatmya**" . The inspiration came cause It had just come out in television when I was typing that.
guess what? that one wasnt taken...
05-30-09, 03:17 AM
#142
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Something obvious that I'd missed.
Cops had a call that two cyclists were riding abreast and holding up traffic.
OP didn't mention riding with anyone.
Therefore (unless the OP corrects us to say he was riding with someone) he could not have been the cause of the original report because he was only riding single file with himself!
This would almost automatically trash on the citation as the cops had pulled over the wrong guy (wrong description - not two cyclists).
More ammunition for the court appearance.
Cops had a call that two cyclists were riding abreast and holding up traffic.
OP didn't mention riding with anyone.
Therefore (unless the OP corrects us to say he was riding with someone) he could not have been the cause of the original report because he was only riding single file with himself!
This would almost automatically trash on the citation as the cops had pulled over the wrong guy (wrong description - not two cyclists).
More ammunition for the court appearance.
05-30-09, 03:22 AM
#143
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As I said, it wasn't the citation I was concerned about but "implied consent" that applies to everyone. You don't have to have a license to violate implied consent. If you are on the road you are subect to this.
The poster stated that he and his friend did get to go home after two hours. One thing I have to wonder is were either of the two previously in trouble for something else and would this concern have prompted the request for a search?
In other words, did either of you cats have priors? Maybe not you but what if you were unaware of something a person with you did and they wanted to search them and by default YOU to see if they were behaving?
I suppose you would be put in a couple squad cars.
The poster stated that he and his friend did get to go home after two hours. One thing I have to wonder is were either of the two previously in trouble for something else and would this concern have prompted the request for a search?
In other words, did either of you cats have priors? Maybe not you but what if you were unaware of something a person with you did and they wanted to search them and by default YOU to see if they were behaving?
I suppose you would be put in a couple squad cars.
Thats it. Super clean. Otherwise I am not sure they would have let me go without making up anything.
They guy thought I didnt live in his city. My house is LESS than one block from his station. He seemed like he was a rookie. (when I say "he" I mean the officer of who was the first one to arrive and the one that stoped us and wrote us the ticket)
05-30-09, 03:31 AM
#144
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I dont want you guys to get upset, because I am not even upset. They tried their best and I kept my cool and they could'nt do a thing. It was fine. Those things really do work. I didnt walk away feeling ***** like most people do after encounters like these.
05-30-09, 03:46 AM
#147
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, criminal defense. A police officer's job, when it comes down to it, is to arrest people. I try to keep clients from going to jail, so I tell them: "don't admit to anything, refuse consent for anything, and if all else fails, demand your attorney." A traffic stop doesn't warrant an attorney, usually, but I would always counsel refusal to searches.
When you were asked to accompany the officer, did you feel that you could refuse?
When you were asked to accompany the officer, did you feel that you could refuse?
I just wanted to know if there is people interested in keeping cyclists rights to the roadway that I should contact. This went totally on the other direction.
05-30-09, 03:53 AM
#148
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
To get back to the incident that prompted this legal beagle discussion - I wasn't there but I suspect there is more to The Story and there may have been a probable cause or catalyst for the LEO's action that Eat My A** failed to mention in his version of the encounter.
It seemed to have the opposite effect. Anwered everything in a nice tone like if they were customers at a market (exept when I refused to answer in wich there was just silence) and said yes sir, no sir. I did everything they asked. What I did not do was let them search me. I also made sure I was detained before I refused to answer questions about my car, my experience cycling, my family. I never responded to their threats or negative comments and name calling. I did it quietly and calmly.
Last edited by EatMyA**; 05-30-09 at 03:59 AM.
05-30-09, 04:02 AM
#149
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
According to the OP, he and his friend were the only vehicle operators traveling on the road, at least in their direction. So, right there, it's impossible for them to be "impeding traffic," when they are the only traffic on the road. Furthermore, under California law, cyclists may ride in any lane as long as they are riding at the normal speed of traffic traveling in that direction, at that time and place. Thus, if the OP's account is accurate, there was no violation, and the deputies had no probable cause, and thus, the deputies had no authority to even stop them, let alone issue a citation.
05-30-09, 04:05 AM
#150
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't think we will find out from the OP what, if anything, prompted the LEO actions. Presumably the judge will if the OP decides to open up that can of worms when he appears in traffic court for the ticket. I make my assumptions from the OP's chosen moniker and the previous advice he has given other posters on other threads to invoke his name when in a dispute.