Which shows that my assumptions were correct about the situation.
My prior advice stands.
However, a note for you to consider. The traffic cop certainly would have had a view of not only the arrow for the traffic coming off the freeway the other direction, but also the light for the traffic heading West on the overpass. That traffic cannot get a green light until you have a red light. So if he saw that light green before your wheels entered the intersection, that might have been the basis for your ticket.
Also, you need to be certain he ticketed you for running a red light. Did you look up the code section he cited on the ticket? It is possible to ticket someone for “running a red” not by citing that actual statute, but by citing something more general, like dangerous driving, etc. This is what gets used when you make the light, but you sped up dangerously to do so.
Finally, for what it is worth, I seriously doubt that the arrows for the left turners for those exiting the freeway in both directions are out of sync. There wouldn’t be much reason for them to be out of sync: it isn’t like anyone on the surface street can go until both arrows are red.
It took me 15 seconds to get the info from the city of Scottsdale website. The DOT section also included info about signal lights. It would take you less time to call and ask.
I see where the OP is going. Let’s say he is on a east/west street.
He is traveling east in the left-hand turn lane (so prepared to turn north). The cop only can see the west-bound turn arrow. He sees THAT light turn red and then OP makes his turn. Assuming that the east and west bound arrows are simultaneous, he tickets OP for running a red light.
IANAL and god knows Scottsdale is their own little universe, but I would say your strategy should be:
Establish the officer could not see your light. Go stand where he was sitting and take pictures.
Establish that the lights are not simultaneous and that yours is later. The city may be able to help. If not, take two simultaneous videos of the lights so the judge can see things like that blue car was in the east-bound left turn lane when the west-bound one turned red
but still made a legal turn on green.
No disrespect intended here, but how do you know you didn’t run the light? It’s often hard to tell.
And, again, check to see what they cited you for. Look that actual statute up.
Police officers rarely make things up. He most likely had a valid reason for thinking you violated the law. You may not know what that is until you get to court.
Because I know red from green? I go on green and stop on red, and I went.
I did look it up - it’s running a red light. I’m not saying he made anything up - I don’t know what he was thinking. I can’t read minds and I didn’t ask. I know I saw him before I even got to the line and would’ve been a fool to run a light with a cop right in front of me.
When he pulled out behind me I thought, “that’s weird - why didn’t that cop go around me?” and I promptly got over to the far right lane. When he stuck to my ass and got over too I thought “shit, something must be wrong with the front of my car and he’s stopping me to let me know.” When he said I ran the red light my jaw dropped into my lap. I absolutely did not run the red light.
I’ve been caught for plenty of shit in my life that I did do and I have absolutely no trouble manning up and accepting my punishment. I did not run that red light.
Does the OP have to prove that the light was mis-timed? Surely it is enough that the cop could not see HIS traffic light? If the cop didn’t see his traffic light, then how can he testify that he ran through a red one? The light could have been pink for all the cop knew?
Or am I living in the U.S. of the last century where the government had to actually have evidence of wrongdoing to take a person’s money?
It’s always an excellent idea to bring photographic evidence a sign or a light was missing, damaged, or not visible from your (or the cop’s) perspective when you got a ticket. It’s also worth fighting because the cop may not even show up for court.
Is it possible you didn’t clear the intersection before it turned red? Like maybe it was turned yellow right after you decided to go through it?
I had a cop tell me I went through a red light even though it was still yellow as I passed underneath it (I know because I knew the cop was right behind me but I didn’t think I could stop safely). I mention this because he told me “you went through a red light”, he didn’t say “the light turned red before you cleared the intersection”.
The prosecutor would most likely be able to support a conviction with the following rough outline of testimony:
Establish that the officer is familiar with the intersection.
Establish what the officer did see (arrow in the direction he could see went red before the car entered the intersection).
Establish that the officer is familiar with the intersection and that the lights are synchronized.
The conclusion at that point is Q. E. D. Cisco, it seems to me we have three possible options here:
You were wrong about the color of the light when you actually entered the intersection.
The officer was wrong about the color of the light when you actually entered the intersection.
Neither was wrong, but the officer’s assumption was invalid (i.e.: the lights are synchronized).
If you can prove 3, then you will stand a good chance of acquittal. However, we both suspect 3 is not the case, because of the way the intersection is designed. It is, however, worth your time to investigate.
If you can’t prove 3, then I can guarantee you that the court is going to accept 1 before it accepts 2, unless you can get the officer to admit the error (we both know the likelihood of this). As someone who doesn’t know either of you, I am inclined to suspect 1 before 2, as indicated in my post above. The judge is even more likely to accept the word of the officer, since the alternative will be to assume the officer is a lying sack of feces, or has the eyesight of a blind pig. YMMV.
Now one other thought occurs. Did you look up the statute? Most jurisdictions have re-written their running the red light statute to apply only when the light turns red before your wheels enter the intersection. However, it is possible that your jurisdiction applies the statute to people who have not EXITED the intersection before the red. You should read the statute and see which concept applies.
In the absence of anything else, as I said, you may not know exactly what you are facing unless and until you go to court.
Maybe the intersection is normally syncronized, but that morning it was malfunctioning. Unless the officer can testify that he personally observed the full syncronization that particular morning, how can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (at least that’s the Florida standard) that the OP ran a red light?
It seems as if all the officer can say that since the light he saw was red, then the OPs opposite light “should” have been red. He couldn’t testify that it actually was…
Criminal traffic citations have the same standard of proof as any other criminal proceeding.
However, “reasonable doubt” does not mean beyond any possible alternative. People tend to forget this. In the case I outlined, absent some evidence that the light is not synchronized at some point, the officer’s tesitmony would likely be considered sufficient. It would, of course, be even more sufficient if he/she testifies that he/she personally observed the synchronization that morning.
But think about it: if the light was NOT synchronized, what would have happened? The traffic from the East, headed West on the surface street, would have started forward while the traffic exiting from the southbound freeway, turning left onto the Eastbound surface street was still going through the light. That would be pretty obvious to an officer there at that intersection for more than one or two cycles of the light.
Yes, it is. When I got a speeding and no belt ticket 2 years ago I researched this very fact. It is a holdover from the days when traffic offenses were criminal in Florida.
Sure, but I’m sure that the OP isn’t talking about thirty seconds passing. A mis-timed light could be of the one or two second times which could not have an observable effect on opposing traffic (e.g. you see the light turn green but cars keep coming for two seconds. You chalk it up to red light runners, but obviously don’t slam into them. You are already stopped)
And, no, at least in Florida, traffic citations are not criminal; they are civil, but they have still retained a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard…
Looking it up online, it looks like traffic cases are criminal in most states. Learn something new every day. I just assumed traffic cases where their own category, as the courts are entirely separate (at least here in Illinois they are.)
edit: However, I just noticed that you just wrote Florida tickets are civil as well, except the burden is still “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So who knows.
They are separate in Florida as well, but traffic cases have retained the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
But the OP is in Arizona, and if they have a “preponderance” standard, then he still has the fact that the cop has zero evidence of the condition of the OP’s light…
