Interesting, thank you. More problems come with out-of-state speeding tickets. My husband got one in another state and did not want to return to plead not guilty.
What do you mean about No U-turn signs not properly installed? What about any traffic signs?
depends on the state - Calif makes traffic tickets a game if you are willing to play. All traffic signs need to be properly installed with a reason for being there - even stop signs and lights. Calif is really big on large centralized government so most 'traffic control devices,' i.e., signs and lights, need to be justified by a traffic engineers report. Speed limits are the same way.
There is a document in Cailfornia called the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [its actually federal] but the link is here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/mutcdsupp/ca_mutcd2012.htm
and California requires that all signs and limits be adopted in accordance with the standards therein. Moreover, California also provides full evidentiary hearing rights to anyone who has a citation for violating a posted sign directing or prohibiting conduct. And Calif has the police officer be the prosecutor. So when the cop shows up and stays that "defendant failed to stop completely at the stop sign," I object that the officer is not competent to testify as to the stop being a lawful stop sign. I point the 2 laws - 1 a VC section - which requires that all signs be posted IAW the MUTCD and the other that a witness cannot testify as to facts of which they have no direct knowledge [hearsay].
The officer can testify there was a sign there - but cannot testify that it was a legally installed one. Absent that very important bit of information, a person cannot be convicted here. The only people competent to testify as to the signs are the engineers who required them as part of a traffic engineering survey and City Clerk that the City Council properly adopted the sign in accordance with the survey. That is NOT going to happen in traffic court. Like I said, California traffic enforcement is a game - you can figure this out, plead not guilty and win, or hire a lawyer for $150-200 to do the same thing [they have dozens every day so its pretty profitable work] or pay $500, do no work - except for wasting a nice weekend day doing 8 hours of traffic school.
Many states have a law that say that it is a legal presumption that the sign is valid. This shifts the burden of proof to you to prove it isn't. Calif [and a few others] have never gone down that road. since infraction penalties are so low - and there is no jail time involved the courts pretty much give the states lots of leeway on shifting the burdens of proof to the defendant.
Some states have pretty common sense rules- and an enforcement system that is not a major component of the budget. Others, like the liberal mavens, [CA/IL/NY/MA] use traffic fines to augment budgets and this a simple failure to stop at a stop sign is a $500+ event plus the loss of a day doing traffic school to buy a 'dismissal' from the state. The process is no different than a protection racket. The 'courtesy' notice you get from the court does not allow you to plead not guilty - you can pay, seek traffic school or plead guilty with an explanation but if you want to plead not guilty you can do that only in person or on line.
There is one city in Calif in Orange County that RARELY sees traffic enforcement of residents other than warnings because the citizens have learned to plead not guilty to everything - which requires officers in court - over time spending, etc etc etc. So the police commissions simply chatted with their chiefs and instead of issuing tickets and then dismissing them when the defendant shows up in court, they just give residents warnings - unless it results in accident, property damage or dui or happens in a school or senior zone.
