Stop Sign Violation Question

[Scruit]

If he cited you for failing to stop at a stop sign/line, and there is no sign/line there, then his citation surely cannot stand?? Check the wording of the statute listed on the ticket as tdp_six said.

Admitting that you didn't stop is of no consequence if there is no legal requirement for you to stop... Just like you admitting speeding because you thought the limit was 35 but it was really 55, and you were going 50. You can admit speeding until you are blue in the face but if you were not breaking the law then you should not be convicted.

That is the defense that I would use. Take many photos of the intersection showng that there was no stop sign etc. Then read up your local statute that deals with stop signs and see if there is something other than a sign or a line that would require you to stop (sometimes you are required to stop when pulling out of a parking lot onto a main road, even if there is not sign/line).

[Ianscape]

MA right? I think they are the same as us in NH, that any road connecting to a "way" you must yeild at an intersection. So you may want to see if that applies, and if he was far enought away, you would have had plenty of time for the yeild. Best talk to a lawyer tho.

[Gotrek]

I got a warning for the same offense, (I got a ticket but fought it)
I'm in canada so the laws may be different but I made a right hand turn from a controlled intersection where the stop sign had been removd/stolen, there was no stopping line like we have in the city. I got pulled over and was given a ticket. I told the officer I had not seen the stop sign which he assured me was there. I asked him to go look at the intersection with me but her refused (which I understand no issue there) So I walked back and took a bunch of pictures, and fought the ticket in court ad won. It's not the officers fault or mine, whoever stole the sign was responsible. If everything you say is true then why not fight it if you have proof. just check local laws first to make sure it's not a violation I'm sure some towns in the Us, just like some in canada have laws saying if there is no yield sign then it's an automatic stop sign when coming to an intersection..

[ngcsubutterbar]

yeah he could very well be trying to get you with something he always assumed was in the statue. remote possiblity but it happened in north ATL with left turns

[sorrel]

[QUOTE=woody6226]I am positive becasue I drive there every weekend. It is the road that leads to my cottage that is on the water.

IMO, I am neither a officer nor a lawyer.
I do not think you will have much to defend yourself with.

You know the road well, very well.
And from your own words, recorded ones, you were aware that you were supposed to stop.

Yes, you certainly can go to court, hire a lawyer spend a great deal of pocket money.
And end up paying the ticket, the lawyer fees and court costs, which are tacked on if you lose.
The decision to do so is up to you.

[Stump]

The reason why officers record conversations with people is so they can use them for evidence.
You admitted that you were wrong, and now you want to fight it? You haven't a chance, grasshopper. He will be bringing that in, I am sure.
Don't waste the courts time by fighting it. Please.

[mcsap]

I can give someone a stop sign ticket even if they fully stop at a stop sign.

If a person stops and than goes to pull out but crashes into someone, they failed to yield to other traffic who had the right of way which is also part of the Stop Sign section. People have a hard time comprehending this when they get cited for it.

[Scruit]

Stump,

If he admitted, on tape, that he should have stopped then what difference does it make? If there is no legal requirement to stop there (and assuming that there truly is no stop sign, stop line, "STOP' painted on the floor or other statutory requirement to stop at that intersection) then there is no Actus Reus (Guilty Act). The existence of the Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) alone is technically not sufficient for a conviction. Both must exist, and at the same time, unless it is a 'Strict Liability' (or equivalent) wherein the guilty act alone is sufficient for conviction even without proof of the guilty mind (speeding, no insurance etc are usually strict liability)


If I could be found guilty of a crime that I THOUGHT I had comitted, but not actually comitted... Damn... Could you imagine that? I shoot someone and then run away leaving them for dead. They survive. If a cop gets me to admit 'Killing' the guy then could I be found guilty of murder? No! Attempted murder, yes... ADW, Hook me up... Felonious Assault? Gimme those shiny state bracelets... :D But not murder. Because the 'guilty act' of murder does not exist, even though the 'guilty mind' DID.

So, following this logic, I would submit that his admission of guilty to a offense that he did not commit is NOT sufficient for conviction. If he can prove that there is no legal requirement for him to stop at that intersection, then he should be found NOT guilty. Think of it as a Mistake In Law that works in his favor.


Whether he should morally be allowed to 'get away with' something that he thought he did wrong is another debate. Law says he should. Justice might disagree. However, as I keep saying... Law and Justice are often two very different things.

[Scruit]

MCSAP,

Is a stop-sign violation a 'Failure To Yield' ticket (or whatever your state's equivalent is) or is it a 'Failure to Obey a Traffic Control Device' ticket (or whetever)?

Seems to me that it would be... If they blow the stop sign is it FTO/TCD, and it they stop, but then run into someone who was already legally in the intersection then it would be FTY. If that how it is? or do you just do FTY for everyone?

Of course you're expected to ticket in cases of accident, but what about if someone blows a stop sign (or even does the old rolling-stop, or even stops at a 4-way stop but then goes out of turn too early...) and you witness it? Do you generally ticket them, or only if it's safe and convenient to get in behind them...

I only ask because I see people runing stop signs all the time and I often think; "Damn, if I was a cop I'd go pull them over) and then I think; What course of action would serves the greater good here? A cop can spin around and ticket him but then s/he would have to make a U-turn in this heavy traffic etc, or speed to catch up. Is it fair to put other drivers at that level of risk just to ticket the guy for the stop sign? Is it fair to let him get away just because it's inconvenient for the officer to stop him?

I guess it's one of those judgement calls that puts experience and common sense at odds with the desire to ticket every single violator.

[sbrad]

Not stopping for the sign in failure to obey a traffic control device. If they stop and then proceed to t-bone someone it's still failure to yield while entering a roadway.
I write stop sign tickets all the time. I love them. Mostly because I think they are VERY effective in making someone pull their head out of their *** and think twice before they run a stop sign.

Stump-
I'm with Scruit, and I was going to say it much the same way. Just because you say you broke the law doesn't make it so, grasshopper.

[mcsap]

A stop sign vio has 2 parts.

1. Stopping

2. Yielding when pulling out.

Both are the same fines and points. Doesn't matter how it happened, only one person can legally occupy that spot on the road at a time. 98% of our traffic vio's do not require any intent. Either you did it or you didn't.

If someone make a U turn where not permitted we have " Obedience to Traffic Control Devices". Same fine but NO points.

If someone blows a stop sign they are getting an autograph, if they slowly roll it will depend on several factors whether I cite or warn.

With my lights and siren I can " part the sea" without much problem. If I am in the unmarked , I am less likely to move traffic out of the way to go after them.