Breaking news: Andrew Woolley found not guilty of violating CVC 21202(a)
Posted By Sam Ollinger on December 12, 2009
I’ll just quote briefly from the City Attorney’s Response:
The evidence at trial established that at the time of the citation traffic was moving very slowly, creeping along, and that Appellant was riding to the left of the traffic in the number two lane, passing the slow-moving cars. The officer cited Appellant for failing to ride along the right edge of the roadway in violation of Vehicle Code section 21202(a). However, that section applied only to a person operating a bicycle “at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time (emphasis by City Attorney). At the time of the citation, traffic was creeping along and Appellant was riding at a speed greater than the speed of traffic at that time.
Appellant may have violated other statutes (e.g. Vehicle Code section 22350), but does not appear to have violated Section 21202(a). Accordingly, Respondent concedes the conviction should be reversed.
More analysis will be posted later, along with the actual response.
I am not a lawyer, but I was surprised to see the Deputy City Attorney Steven K. Hansen introduce a speculation that had not been established at the trial (i.e. the possible violation of 22350).
More will be posted after this busy day has passed, including details about Officer Root personally harassing Andrew Woolley long after the trial was completed.
Thanks for posting this Sam.
Obviously I’m happy to be getting off, and getting my money back. But the “victory” is not entirely sweet. First, the City Attorney only responded to the “faster than the normal speed of traffic” element of my argument. There is no discussion about the exceptions I argued (right-turn, and passing other vehicles).
Second, as Sam mentioned, the baseless speculation that I may have been violating CVC 22350 (Must operate vehicle at safe speed). Where did they come up with that? Is speculation of that nature within the legal boundary for a respondent’s brief?
More to follow, but for now, at least, a little pressure is off.
This is absolutely terrific news. It’s more than about the conviction reversal. It’s that the City Attorney’s office has taken a formal position (finally!) that we can use to educate police officers (not just this particular officer) about 21202 and have some credibility about it. So long as officers were writing tickets, and judges were upholding them, the police department was thinking they were doing the right thing, and the City Attorney’s office wasn’t compelled to take a position. With this written opinion, we’ll be in a MUCH better position with the police to get them to stop writing erroneous 21202 citations.
It’s a HUGE step. Congratulations!
Let me translate the part about 22350 for you: “It looks like the cyclist did not violate 21202(a) in this case. However, it does seem like he was riding in an unsafe manner so he was probably violating something else. May we suggest 22350? There may be others. Feel free to get creative the next time you see him on the road.”
@MTS – That’s my reading of that little blurb about 22350 as well. Grrr….
What’s this about Root harassing AJ?
Thanks for sharing the link – but unfortunately it looks to be down? Will anybody have a mirror or another supply?