Lackner

United States v. Lackner

Good Law
74 F. App'x 824
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 15, 2003No. 02-10605; D.C. No. CR-02-00379-MMCCalifornia285 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Christian Johannes Lackner appeals pro se the district court’s affirmance of his petty offense conviction and $75 fine, after trial before a magistrate judge, for failure to stop his bicycle at a stop sign in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 1004.12 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, United States v. Davidson, 246 F.3d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir.2001), and we vacate and remand.

The district court properly rejected the magistrate judge’s interpretation of the California Vehicle Code, which is incorporated by reference in the federal regulation, because the relevant provision of the Code does not require a driver or cyclist to come to a complete stop before reaching a posted stop sign when there is no limit or stop line. See Cal. Veh.Code § 22450(a) (“If there is no limit line or crosswalk, the driver shall stop at the entrance to the intersecting roadway.”). There is no basis in the plain language of the statute, however, for the district court’s ruling that the statute would nonetheless prohibit a driver who had not yet reached the intersection from making a U-turn without stopping. We remand because there was conflicting testimony as to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.