Charged with violating 24400 (b) : Operating without headlight in inclement weather.

[eecraft]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? : California

This was in Saratoga CA yesterday morning (3/5/2016) at 10:55am. Officer described inclement weather as windshield wipers continuously operating. Ticket carries a time stamp of 10:57am. In this case:
- Vipers were not operating continuously. Like the rain, they were intermittent. This is my recollection.
- My car has automatic vipers, and automatic headlights. I pointed that out to the cop. Confirmed later yesterday from car manufacturer that if vipers had been continuously operating, headlights would've been turned on. So, this is consistent with my recall.
- I took a picture a few minutes after, shows no rain at all. So it was not raining continuously, which meant wipers wouldn't have been on continuously.
- I have saved today's weather record for Saratoga. Shows light rain at 10:55am. Also shows visibility was good.

So, I have collected evidence that headlights did not need to come up.

I want to fight this. Any pointers? Do I need a lawyer for this?

I don't have any points on my record, only ticket I ever got was 15 years ago. Generally a very cautious driver (even yesterday, was doing 30mph in a 35mph zone and that's on the ticket too), only one accident on my fault, which was a fender bender 8 years ago and no cops were involved as I agreed that it was on me.

 

[FlyingRon]

Your options are the same as for everybody else:

1. Plead guilty and pay the fine.
2. Pay the fine as bail and request a TBWD.
3. Go to your arraignment and plead not guilty and go to court on it.
4. See if traffic school is offered, pay the fine, the traffic school fee, and take traffic school to avoid the point.

I agree with you. Intermittent wiper operation is not "continuous" operation and continuous operation is what the statute says.

I'd do a TBD and if that doesn't work go to trial.

 

[CdwJava]

Note that the term "continuous" can be the same as continually operating in intermittent mode. It does not describe an interval of activation, so as long as the wipers are active on a regular basis - even on an intermittent setting (a continuous, slow repetition) - this can be sufficient. How your local court might decide this is something we cannot even begin to guess.

Also note that the officer might also articulate conditions that prevented visibility more than 1,000 feet (such as a light rainfall which would not require the continuous use of the wipers.

You can take your chances at trial starting with a TBWD, or pursue the other options FlyingRon mentioned and likely get a guarantee of traffic school. Going to trial may lose you that opportunity. Your call.

 

[eecraft]

Note that the term "continuous" can be the same as continually operating in intermittent mode. It does not describe an interval of activation, so as long as the wipers are active on a regular basis - even on an intermittent setting (a continuous, slow repetition) - this can be sufficient. How your local court might decide this is something we cannot even begin to guess.

Also note that the officer might also articulate conditions that prevented visibility more than 1,000 feet (such as a light rainfall which would not require the continuous use of the wipers.

You can take your chances at trial starting with a TBWD, or pursue the other options FlyingRon mentioned and likely get a guarantee of traffic school. Going to trial may lose you that opportunity. Your call.

Visibility: Have weather records from yesterday that show visibility at the nearest station to that as 2 miles in that light rain. Plus when I asked officer, he said wipers mean lights.

Well, in that case both wipers and lights were on automatic, *and* the manufacturer of my vehicle has connected those two functions. So, the vehicle is in compliance with the law. I am in compliance in using capabilities of such a vehicle.

I wouldn't be worried about points on my record, for I have none and have no expectation of changing my driving to accumulate more any time. My insurance company knows very well my risk profile, same carrier for 20+ years. So, the downside of losing to me, financially, is very bearable.

If people like me do not question the system, then we end up in a police state where any officer can use "I say so" to any situation. I'm hardly the activist type, quite the opposite - am as bland as they come. But I cannot fathom a system where a person cannot provide reasonable explanations to the protectors of the law. (And, I'm a minority, police officer was Caucasian - and I'm now wondering if all those BlackLivesMatter type things about the police are indeed true. Just like that, this one police officer by not listening to me has created a doubter.)

 

[eecraft]

Your options are the same as for everybody else:

1. Plead guilty and pay the fine.
2. Pay the fine as bail and request a TBWD.
3. Go to your arraignment and plead not guilty and go to court on it.
4. See if traffic school is offered, pay the fine, the traffic school fee, and take traffic school to avoid the point.

I agree with you. Intermittent wiper operation is not "continuous" operation and continuous operation is what the statute says.

I'd do a TBD and if that doesn't work go to trial.

Thanks for the feedback. #1, quite simply is not an option or else I participate in accepting a system that can be so arbitrary. Not referring to why I was pulled over or getting a warning, referring to an officer being so oblivious to any explanation. (And the fact of officer being a caucasian male, and me not being one - dark skinned south Asian - is bothering me more than I would've thought possible before this incident.)

2. What is TBWD?

3. Is the plan. Really hoping that the justice system is not as callous and high-handed as this officer was.

4. Fortunately for me, I do not need to fear getting a point on my record. In 20+ years of driving, I only got one ticket - I was at fault - and I did traffic school back then.
That was 15 years ago. I'm expecting my record to be pretty empty right now and will probably stay that way, unless I am targeted in the future. And then too, I am fairly comfortable with the thought of complying with the law at all times.

 

[CdwJava]

You might want to check with your insurer. A point most often means a significant bump in premiums for 36 months. My wife got ONE point on hers in nearly 30 years of driving, and we got hit for a nice bump for three years.

And you have every right to challenge the cite. But, if the officer articulates poor visibility or steady rain, that is likely to carry more weight than a generic weather report from approximately the same time. Last night when I was caught in a blinding deluge in Sacramento, my weather app stated that Sacramento was experiencing "light showers."

You way want to request the officer's notes in discovery so you will have some idea as to what he is going to testify to. Frankly, if the rain is sufficient to require windshield wipers - even in the intermittent mode - you are likely to get cited for VC 24400(b) if the officer is so inclined. However, most non-traffic officers are not going to choose to get out of their cars in the rain ... it's wet!

 

[eecraft]

You might want to check with your insurer. A point most often means a significant bump in premiums for 36 months. My wife got ONE point on hers in nearly 30 years of driving, and we got hit for a nice bump for three years.

And you have every right to challenge the cite. But, if the officer articulates poor visibility or steady rain, that is likely to carry more weight than a generic weather report from approximately the same time. Last night when I was caught in a blinding deluge in Sacramento, my weather app stated that Sacramento was experiencing "light showers."

You way want to request the officer's notes in discovery so you will have some idea as to what he is going to testify to. Frankly, if the rain is sufficient to require windshield wipers - even in the intermittent mode - you are likely to get cited for VC 24400(b) if the officer is so inclined. However, most non-traffic officers are not going to choose to get out of their cars in the rain ... it's wet!

Excellent point, and I didn't know to look for a bodycam. I hope he had one on and that I can ask for footage during discovery.
The officer was not really getting that wet, if at all, when walking over to give me a ticket. The bodycam would show that.

(If it had been raining enough to trigger a continuous wiper, then my headlights ought to have turned on also and they have.)

So its really the officer's judgement vs my judgement, picture I took a few minutes after, and the technology in my vehicle (which is quantitative, not subjective) AND the weather report.
Is the system this messed up that *I* have to worry about the consequences to me? Wow!!

 

[CdwJava]

Saratoga is a contract city to the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and most deputies do not like doing traffic (they tend to have MOUs in the non-city areas that have the CHP doing most the traffic enforcement). However, in Saratoga they do (or, at least they used to) have deputies assigned to traffic because that's what the city contracts for.

You may not be able to get a copy of the video as part of discovery, but, you may be able to view it. I am not sure what their policy is. If it mirrors the CHP then you will be able to view it but not obtain a copy.

And, yes, the system does tend to be weighted in favor of the officer's testimony. Why? Because the system sees his bias to be less than yours as he has no real stake in the outcome.

 

[HighwayMan]

Not referring to why I was pulled over or getting a warning, referring to an officer being so oblivious to any explanation. (And the fact of officer being a caucasian male, and me not being one - dark skinned south Asian - is bothering me more than I would've thought possible before this incident.

Now you're being silly.

First of all, I have several cars that have headlights linked with the wipers and even when the wipers are on in intermittent mode the headlights come on.

Most of the time, in fact almost always, it is difficult or impossible to determine someone's race prior to stopping them. The officer was enforcing the letter of the law and you don't like that so you're blaming it on race.

I write alot of traffic tickets and I know what I see prior to making the a stop and am confident in my observations and note taking. I have neither the desire nor time to listen to excuses from motorists especially when I've heard the same excuses hundreds of times. The officer is under NO obligation to listen to your excuse or explanation on the side of the road. If you feel it was that valid and relevant then tell it to a judge and let him/her decide.

 

[justalayman]

The officer was not really getting that wet, if at all, when walking over to give me a ticket. The bodycam would show that.

so it was raining when you were stopped. Otherwise there would be no question as the officer simply would not have gotten wet at all.

(If it had been raining enough to trigger a continuous wiper, then my headlights ought to have turned on also and they have.)

you are depending too much on your car. It is not perfect and any car I am aware of with automatic lights has an adjustment that allows you to alter the light level required to cause them to activate. I would imagine an automatic wiper system would have a similar adjustment so the driver could adjust them to their own preferences.

You are also missing cdwjava's statement that being in intermittent mode continuously may be adequate for the court to determine your wipers were in fact on.

So its really the officer's judgement vs my judgement, picture I took a few minutes after, and the technology in my vehicle (which is quantitative, not subjective) AND the weather report.

so what kind of car is this that is so intuitive it acts in full compliance with the laws of the state of California?

 

[eecraft]

Now you're being silly.

First of all, I have several cars that have headlights linked with the wipers and even when the wipers are on in intermittent mode the headlights come on.

Most of the time, in fact almost always, it is difficult or impossible to determine someone's race prior to stopping them. The officer was enforcing the letter of the law and you don't like that so you're blaming it on race.

I write alot of traffic tickets and I know what I see prior to making the a stop and am confident in my observations and note taking. I have neither the desire nor time to listen to excuses from motorists especially when I've heard the same excuses hundreds of times. The officer is under NO obligation to listen to your excuse or explanation on the side of the road. If you feel it was that valid and relevant then tell it to a judge and let him/her decide.

I wonder how representative you are of people working in law enforcement. In a way, that is what I'm trying to get a sense of.
With the attitude like what you're demonstrating, I wouldn't think I'm being served or protected. (And I'm under the impression that this is your primary job.)

 

[justalayman]

I wonder how representative you are of people working in law enforcement. In a way, that is what I'm trying to get a sense of.
With the attitude like what you're demonstrating, I wouldn't think I'm being served or protected. (And I'm under the impression that this is your primary job.)

a cop serves and protects by enforcing the laws in place so the rest of us are safe from the lawbreakers. The requirement for lights in inclement weather is so other cars can see you more easily hence the cop was acting to protect the general public.

 

[HighwayMan]

With the attitude like what you're demonstrating...

And what might THAT be? Care to elaborate?

 

[eecraft]

I think I've gotten my answer already...

The system seems to be more about nit-picking and the cops opinions than it is about protecting life and property (the stated primary mission of the particular agency in question).

That being the case, it is far more expedient for me to pay them off. Thanks guys!

(btw, I've replied to HighwayMan's last post. Not sure why it is not showing up. Got flagged to a moderator, apparently).

 

[justalayman]

And what might THAT be? Care to elaborate?

aww, come on HM. It's obvious OP believes a cop doing his job is supposed to kowtow to him. His statement about the cop not wanting to listen to his explanation makes that obvious. In fact, it appears the OP has something other than the simple fact he got a ticket to commiserate about.

(And, I'm a minority, police officer was Caucasian - and I'm now wondering if all those BlackLivesMatter type things about the police are indeed true. Just like that, this one police officer by not listening to me has created a doubter.)

(And the fact of officer being a caucasian male, and me not being one - dark skinned south Asian - is bothering me more than I would've thought possible before this incident.)

4. Fortunately for me, I do not need to fear getting a point on my record. In 20+ years of driving, I only got one ticket - I was at fault - and I did traffic school back then.
That was 15 years ago. I'm expecting my record to be pretty empty right now and will probably stay that way, unless I am targeted in the future. And then too, I am fairly comfortable with the thought of complying with the law at all times.

He makes three statements about racial profiling within 6 posts.

So the guy gets a second ticket over a period of 15 years and suddenly he is concerned about being targeted and the cops discriminating due to his race. If that were the case, he would have a lot more tickets through the years. This is tickling my trolldar.