Window tint & third brake light.

[Bugsi]

Last month I got a ticket for turning right on a red light without stopping.
I was totally blindsided that it wasn't a yield-turn, as there were two dedicated right-turn lanes with huge right-turn arrows painted in the lanes, totally separated from the other lanes with an island. I don't normally turn right at that light, I normally turn left, but that day I was going to my bank before work, and was turning right. I was going slow. The officer said around 15 mph. At least here in California, a stop-on-red before turning right requires there to be a stoplight off to the right side of the turning lane. In this case, that light is totally obscured by trees as you approach it, so I kind of feel ripped-off.

I got ticketed by a lady motorcycle officer who was SMOKING HOT, and she yelled at me about my "modified exhaust" and "rear window tint over the third brake light." She said the third brake light has to be visible from 80 feet and claimed that it wasn't. I wasn't going to go measure it and argue with her, but I think she was wrong. I spoke to her about my exhaust (Magnaflow 2-outlet muffler with stainless tips), explaining that it's completely legal and passed every inspection the state threw at it, and I told her nobody has ever complained about the third brake light. (Honestly I never gave it a second thought. I pulled out the back seat and rear deck and third brake light before I had the rear window tinted, just to make it easy for the tint shop to get to.) The officer nearly screamed at me "DID I TICKET YOU FOR THOSE ITEMS????" -Clearly a rhetorical question, which I elected not to reply to, because it was apparent she only ticketed me for the red light violation. She said "You can take care of those items on your own." I repeated that my exhaust isn't illegal and she agreed that it might be legal, but mumbled something about "Maybe it violates noise-pollution laws" (bullsh*t) and then explained "The thing is, these items DRAW ATTENTION TO YOUR CAR when you're going through a red light." That kind of explained things a little bit; I suppose she was just pointing out that she was more apt to notice my red light violation.

Fast forward 4 weeks, and I actually bumped into her in the lobby of my office where I work. She was on duty, responding to a call where someone injured their foot, and a fire truck, an ambulance, and the motorcycle officer had responded. As she was wrapping things up I went and chatted with her, asking her "Are you the officer that ticketed me last month?" She asked if I was pulled over by an officer in a car or a motorcycle, and when I said motorcycle she said "Then that was me, as I'm the only female motorcycle officer on the force." -We chatted about my ticket, and I told her about the light being obscured by trees. (I've since driven that lane taking photos with a camera.) I asked her if it would be a complete waste of time for me to plead not guilty based on the light being obscured. I pointed out that if my brake light has to be visible from 80 feet, that the city's stop light ought to be held to the same standard. She laughed and actually encouraged me to fight my ticket. In any case, she repeated the bit about the tint over my brake light. I'd never heard of that being a problem for anybody before but today I had the tint removed from the area just over the brake light. I pulled the back seat and rear deck cover the night before, and loosened up the 10mm bolts that mount the third brake light, so I could just twist them out with my fingers and pull the light so the tint guy could cut out the film in that area. It looks fine, but it just torques me off that an officer would actually complain about that.

I'm really just kind of wanting to share, because it might help someone else avoid getting pulled over sometime, but I'm wondering if anybody else ever had any problem with this. While I was at the tinter's shop, they had a Subaru crossover SUV with factory tinted rear window with the third brake light mounted at the top of it on the inside. That kind of really irked me.

Let me know what you guys think.

[01bonneSC]

Sounds like she has the classic cop ego problem.

I would fight it, you either pay after pleading your case or you get out of it because you pleaded your case with evidence(pictures). The judge may throw it out cause you took the time to gather a case, etc. Hell she may not even show up and then itll get tossed anyways.

Fight the system! Dont let people in power push you around!

[Mad Myche]

I'd like to see that 80' requirement in writing...

Section 24603(h) of the california car code states that any vehicle meeting FMVSS108 for the CHMSL meets CA requirement. FMVSS108 is all about candelas and zoned distances. So unless I missed something she would need to have a meter registering the light

[Bugsi]

I'd like to see that 80' requirement in writing...

Thanks, I'll add that to my list of things I'll look up. When I mentioned it to her in my work lobby and mentioned she'd said it had to be seen at 80 feet, she interrupted and said "50 feet." I replied "Well at the time you said 80." She said "It's 50." At that point I just said "Okay, so whatever, either 80 feet or 50 feet, whichever it is. . . "

So it seemed that she didn't even have a consistent grasp of the distance. I'll definitely look it up now. More importantly, I'll be looking up whether stop lights are supposed to be visible from a certain distance. It strikes me that the state can't reasonably expect you to obey a traffic signal that you can't see.

[EDIT:] even though section h covers supplemental brake lights, section e might apply as it says this:
"All stoplamps shall be plainly visible and understandable from a distance of 300 feet to the rear both during normal sunlight and at nighttime. . . " (The keyword here being "all".) Even though 300 is much more than 80 or 50, it still shows that the officer isn't clear on the actual law. (Not that it makes my window tint any less of a problem, but still.)

[ga93sle]

It's been explained to me that the brake light laws depend on the light output at the light... I'd say if you had tint on your third brake light, but maybe a brighter bulb you should be ok... I've had DARK lights before, but swapped the bulbs and never had a problem... As far as the stop light goes, if it was that obscurred, I'd fight it...

[00Beast]

Do not bring either the exhaust or the brake light up in court. Just looks to the judge like you're trying to distract from the actual case at hand, and since you weren't ticketed for them, they're non-issues. You could mention the statue that mentions stop lamps must be visible from X feet, and say it should be a similar standard, but also remember the judge doesn't make the laws, he just interprets how they affect your actions in this case, and passes down a "punishment" based on the evidence presented to him by you, the prosecuting attorney and the cop. Just my $.02 on that.

Reminds me of when I got pulled over and asked the cop if my brake lights were illegal (tinted the week before, IIRC) and my dad said "Were you asking him to write you a ticket?" when I told him the story. I felt pretty stupid, lol. The cop just said covers aren't legal, and walked away.

[vogie01]

Do not bring either the exhaust or the brake light up in court. Just looks to the judge like you're trying to distract from the actual case at hand, and since you weren't ticketed for them, they're non-issues. You could mention the statue that mentions stop lamps must be visible from X feet, and say it should be a similar standard, but also remember the judge doesn't make the laws, he just interprets how they affect your actions in this case, and passes down a "punishment" based on the evidence presented to him by you, the prosecuting attorney and the cop. Just my $.02 on that.

Reminds me of when I got pulled over and asked the cop if my brake lights were illegal (tinted the week before, IIRC) and my dad said "Were you asking him to write you a ticket?" when I told him the story. I felt pretty stupid, lol. The cop just said covers aren't legal, and walked away.

As Ed said, don't bring up anything that is not connected to getting the ticket. It is called collateral facts/issues, so the judge will not listen to what you have to say or will just let the ticket stand.

Stick to the issues of your ticket and let the cop have her opinion. It is pretty common for law enforcement officers to interpret laws that they are enforcing and get it wrong. That is why the City or County Attorney is the one who interprets laws and determines whether charges should be filed. Go talk to the City Attorney about your ticket first to see if they will dismiss or cut you a good deal.

[Madcarpenter]

"...I got ticketed by a lady motorcycle officer who was SMOKING HOT..."

I was hopeful when you said you ran into her a second time... Doesn't your phone have a camera?

[Bugsi]

"...I got ticketed by a lady motorcycle officer who was SMOKING HOT..."

I was hopeful when you said you ran into her a second time... Doesn't your phone have a camera?

Yeah, trust me, if I ever see her again, I'm taking pictures. And trust me, I've looked, and there aren't any online. Too bad too, because, well. . .daaaaay-yum. Long blonde hair in a braid ponytail, motorcycle boots up to her knees. . . hadcuffs. . . I'm just sayin'.

[Bugsi]

Follow-up: I pled not-guilty and got a court date, which required me to pay the fine amount as bail (a whopping $480 in California). My court date was yesterday, I opted for "night court" which is at 5:30pm. I printed out a bunch of 11"x17" pictures from Google satellite and street views showing how the stop light is completely obscured by trees. I had copies of pages from the California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices which requires things like stoplights to be placed so they are visible to drivers from the road, along with the table showing that traffic signals must be visible for a minimum of 175 feet.

I got to court early, around 5:00pm. I was the ONLY person there for a court case. They unlocked the courtroom doors at 5:15 and told me mine was the only case, so we could get it over with so everyone could go home early. I walked into the empty courtroom and sat down at the table marked "Defendant". The court clerk had me stand and swore me in. After I sat back down he told me the officer wouldn't be showing up. I asked him what that meant to my case and he said "That means your case will be dismissed." I replied "Aww man, and I prepared a bunch of stuff for this." He laughed and said "Well, you're welcome to present your case. . . but *I* wouldn't!" -I had to agree with him. A lady judge showed up and the bailiff shouted "ALL RISE!" -and I looked around to see whom he was supposed to be shouting at and realized it was JUST ME, so I smirked and stood up, then he shouted "BE SEATED!" -and I rolled my eyes and sat back down.

The judge had me state my name, then she told me the officer called and said she was injured and had asked for the matter to be dismissed. She told me my bail money would be refunded to me in 5 to 7 days, and told me I was free to go and to have a nice evening.

I found out afterwards that the officer that ticketed me used to be the main desk receptionist for the company where I work for many years. So I have three theories:
(1) What the judge said is true and the officer was injured and decided my case isn't worth pursuing.
(2) She decided to give me a break after I talked with her about my ticket in my work lobby and told her I got the tint removed from over the 3rd brake light and about the light hidden by trees, possibly taking into consideration where I work.
(3) It's a conspiracy; the intersection is a big cash-cow for the city, and they don't want anyone on record demonstrating that the signals don't meet state visibility requirements, because if they corrected it they couldn't rake in the cash from the tickets they write.

I'll never know which it is, but I saved the cost of a $480 ticket, avoid a point on my license, and my insurance rate won't go up. I'll take that!

[01bonneSC]

Nice!

Too bad they wouldnt let ya fight the system

Im betting on the cash cow part.

[00Beast]

Yeah, honestly #3 sounds the most likely, lol.