Remember the law is not accusing you of not having the right to travel. Even a commercial operator properly licensed has a right to travel. The difference is whether or not that traveler is subject to the commercial transportation code as in engaged in a regulable activity of the transportation code.
However, in your case, it appears the violation itself is 90/14/B TURN, IMPROPER * c90 §14
BICYCLIST, FAIL YIELD ON TURN TO LEFT TURN, FAIL YIELD ON LEFT TURN, IMPROPER RIGHT TURN, IMPROPER
Notice the asterisk after improper. Well this is what the document states "CIVIL MOTOR VEHICLE INFRACTIONS (CMVIs) citable under G.L. c.90C, § 3(A) are identified in this table with an asterisk (*)
This comes from COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT & REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES
Table of Citable Motor Vehicle Offenses
effective October 23, 2013
[I don't know if these are updated as this is just a quick search in your state you may need tomresearch deeper but I am sure its the same]
The following material is from https://taooflaw.wordpress.com/?s=civil+infraction
When you are STOPPED and DETAINED by an officer for a civil infraction the legal facts are that the officer has perpetrated an illegal and unlawful seizure and false arrest/imprisonment the moment he perpetrated the stop. He both COULD have known and SHOULD have known that his actions violated your rights and the law. Therefore, EVERYTHING he did or discovered during that detainment/seizure of your person and property was ILLEGAL and should be challenged and declared as inadmissible facts, testimony, and evidence under the fruit of the poison tree doctrine.
You will need to file a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence and jurisdiction as they CANNOT obtain evidence OR jurisdiction using ILLEGAL means can they? Obviously the correct answer is NO! The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) is written into a Motion for Discovery, which they MUST answer in relation to your right to discovery in a civil proceeding, which your particular state law should declare that a case such as this is.
You also need to file a Motion to Dismiss. I would vehemently suggest that you use verbatim the specifically worded Request for Admissions/Interrogatories (see below) asking the officer and the plaintiff’s attorney (the alleged ‘prosecutor’) those specific questions relating to the facts of the case. Also consider that, since this is a CIVIL INFRACTION, then HOW can there possibly be an actual PROSECUTOR rather than a PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY representing the other side?
The Request for Admissions/Interrogatories in a Motion for Discovery should contain THESE specific questions, just like they are written below. They should work perfectly in ANY state of the union where these cases are CIVIL INFRACTIONS. You have to change only the [Your State] and the “Officer Shitforbrains” to the name of your particular state where the issue occurred and is a civil infraction and the real name of the officer that perpetrated the stop:
1) “Is the allegation being made considered to be a CIVIL INFRACTION under [Your State] law?”
2) “Can a warrantless arrest or detention be lawfully perpetrated in relation to a CIVIL matter under [Your State] law?”
3) “May a warrant of arrest be obtained WITHOUT a valid statement of probable cause under [Your State] law?”
4) “Under [Your State] law, is a statement of probable cause sufficient to obtain a warrant of arrest if it does NOT allege that an actual crime was perpetrated by the person named or described therein to be arrested?”
5) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required reasonable suspicion or articulable probable cause authorizing a warrantless detention or arrest of an individual?”
6) “Under [Your State] law, did Officer Shitforbrains witness ANY actual CRIME that would have provided him/her with the required probable cause necessary to state sufficient grounds of criminal activity in order for a duly authorized magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest for an individual?”
7) “Was Officer Shitforbrains in possession of a valid warrant of arrest for a male/female suspect using the name “[Your Name Here]” or that contained an adequate physical description that allowed the officer to identify and apprehend the individual accused in this CIVIL INFRACTION?”
The point of the interrogatories is to show that the warrantless detention/arrest of the individual by the officer was both completely unlawful AND illegal BECAUSE there could NEVER have been any reasonable suspicion or probable cause associated with the warrantless seizure of the Accused for a CIVIL INFRACTION. Making ANYTHING that was obtained or discovered by the officer during the detention/arrest for ANY purpose INADMISSIBLE under the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY that can be made, no proof that can be offered, thus, NO CASE of controversy before the court. No case or controversy, no jurisdiction of ANY KIND.
If anyone sees any error to the logic or argument, please feel free to point them out.