Can someone clue me in to what is holding up in court as far as what constitutes "stopping" per part (a) and what is "at an intersection" per part (b).

Essentially an officer wrote a citation for this. The driver turned from an east/west highway into a shopping center parking lot approximately 100 yards prior to the intersection and exited approximately the same distance on another highway that runs north/south (by passing the intersection). Also, the driver had stopped for a stop sign at an entrance thoroughfare about halfway through his detour around the intersection.

Thanks for the feedback in advance.

cam

Could the officer have been thinking of 545.423 (Crossing Property) which makes it illegal for a driver to cross or drive in or on a sidewalk, driveway, parking lot, or buiness or residential entrance at an intersection to turn right or left from one street to another street.

J Ansolabehere

545.423. Crossing Property

(a) An operator may not cross a sidewalk or drive through a driveway, parking lot, or business or residential entrance without stopping the vehicle.

(b) An operator may not cross or drive in or on a sidewalk, driveway, parking lot, or business or residential entrance at an intersection to turn right or left from one highway to another highway.

Basically this is designed to stop people from cutting through parking lots, private property, etc. in order to avoid traffic and lights to make a turn, and I guess also to stop them from squishing people walking down the sidewalk. I would personally interpret the "stopping" requirement to include any kind of full stop of the vehicle (like you're supposed to make for a stop sign), even if you then continue on. I think the "intersection" part of it is to restrict it to corner properties that would physically allow that movement (e.g., a parking lot on the southeast corner of an intersection where the person enters from the street bordering the property on the west, meanders through the lot, and leaves via another entrance/exit on the north side of the property, instead of patiently waiting to make a right turn at the light.

Unless the defendant admits, "Yeah, I cut through, no, I never intended to stop there, the traffic sucked, seemed like a good idea--what's the problem with that?", it seems like there's a lot of plausible scenarios out there to explain why they went on through the parking lot that day without stopping. And many of them fall nicely into the category of things you (or the judge) can way too easily see YOURSELF doing (Oops, forgot my debit card at home/oops, too crowded/oops, not enough time--better go pick up the kids first). And here, at least, NO ONE seems to ever observe that stopping for sidewalks part of things, which it looks to me like you're actually supposed to do both entering and exiting a parking lot, or even your own residential driveway. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but to me, it seems like it would be pretty hard to get a conviction on.

[This message was edited by E. Foley on 07-10-09 at .]

[This message was edited by E. Foley on 07-10-09 at .]

J Ansolabehere: That is exactly what they were thinking of.

E. Foley: OK, that makes good sense to me. My question was centered around intent of the law, which you addressed, and what is likely to be considered "at the intersection" as in this case the driver entered and exited pretty far away from the intersection. This is, in fact, a corner private lot

The officer's argument was that the intent was that the people stop to conduct business but I had to point out that the law doesn't say that and so, a simple stop/start meets the statute.

I agree about the conviction. I essentially asked the officer that if a bigger drug arrest were to come of the stop, how likely would be that the initial stop be upheld.

Thanks to you both for input. I certainly welcome any further comments though if someone has a more clear, court tested definition of either.

cam