108 N.E.3d 769 (Ohio Mun. 2018), 2018 TRD 003339, City of Cleveland v. Barker

Docket Nº:2018 TRD 003339
Citation:108 N.E.3d 769
Opinion Judge:EMANUELLA GROVES, JUDGE.
Party Name:CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff v. James P. BARKER, Jr., Defendant
Attorney:Attorney Lorraine Coyne, Assistant Prosecutor, appeared for Plaintiff and Defendant James P. Barker, Jr., appeared pro se.
Case Date:March 21, 2018
Court:Municipal Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 769

108 N.E.3d 769 (Ohio Mun. 2018)

CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff

v.

James P. BARKER, Jr., Defendant

No. 2018 TRD 003339

Cleveland Municipal Court, Ohio

March 21, 2018

Attorney Lorraine Coyne, Assistant Prosecutor, appeared for Plaintiff and Defendant James P. Barker, Jr., appeared pro se.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

EMANUELLA GROVES, JUDGE.

Page 770

Facts

On January 27, 2018, James P. Barker, Jr., Defendant, was traveling southbound on West 130th Street in Cleveland, Ohio and made a U-turn at the front opening of the grassy island to enter onto Interstate 480. Ohio Highway Trooper Michael Hounsel was stationed in the parking lot of Cabinets Granite and observed the Defendant make a U-turn in front of the "No U-turn" sign. The trooper pulled the Defendant over and cited him for disobeying a traffic control device in violation of O.R.C.4511.12, which states: § 4511.12 Obeying traffic control devices.

(A) No pedestrian, driver of a vehicle, or operator of a streetcar or trackless trolley shall disobey the instructions of any traffic control device placed in accordance with this chapter, unless at the time otherwise directed by a police officer.

No provision of this chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section of this chapter does not state that signs are required, that section shall be effective even though no signs are erected or in place.

Defendant testified and admitted he made the U-turn. Defendant described the area in which he made the U-turn. He stated West 130th Street is a divided street with a grassy green island which separates the north and southbound lanes. He further described the island has an opening at the front and back. However, there is only one "No U-turn" sign erected at the top of the grassy island. He presented a drawing of the area which showed a median strip in front of the island with no sign. The Defendant stated that there is not a "No U-turn" sign in front of the opening where he turned. The sign is behind the opening. The Defendant argued that the "No U-turn" sign was intended for the back opening of the island.

The Defendant stated, "according to the Ohio Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) Section 2B.18, signage for left turns and U-turns are supposed to be before the intersection." The trooper further explained Defendants position and stated, "He turned at the intersection prior to the sign. Because its a double intersection area, so he turned prior to the sign and there is a second section." The trooper further stated, "Weve had people lose trials because they say the sign is for the first one...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP