Encounter with SD Sheriffs - HA!

redy2fiyt · #1 03-22-2007, 02:06 PM

So on my lunchbreak I always drive down to the beach in Encinitas and listen to the radio, watch the waves, and snooze in the car. Today, after two sheriffs drove by and I gave one a dirty look because he kept staring at me they came and banged on my window!

Sheriff 1: Can I see your license

Gabe: Why do you want to see my license? (with some attitude)

Sheriff 1: Because I asked you for it. Now let me see your license.

Gabe: Ah OK, what do you want to see my license for? Did I do something wrong?

Sheriff 1: Your getting off on the wrong foot with me. Do you have a license or not?

Gabe: Yeah I have a license, but I want to know why you want to see it.

Sheriff 1: You want to do this the hard way? You want to end up in court? You want me to write you a ticket for not having a front plate and for the tint on your front windows?

Gabe: Fine - OK, you can write me a ticket if you want to. Here's my license.

Sheriff 1: What are you doing here?

Gabe: I'm eating my lunch and watching the waves, and I was about to take a snooze. I'm I under arrest for something?

Sheriff 1: Should you be?

Gabe: No

Sheriff 1: You ever been arrested?

Gabe: No

Sheriff 1: You ever been to jail?

Gabe: No

Sheriff 1: You ever been to prison?

Gabe: No

Sheriff 1: You on parole?

Gabe: No

Sheriff 1: Don't you think it looks a little suspicious to me when I've been told there's a lot of drug deals going on in this area and your sittin' here with your windows up, and your car running? Why were your windows up?

Gabe: Its too hot.

Sheriff 1: I don't think so. Its a nice day.

Gabe: Its too hot for me.

Sheriff 1: No, its a nice day. Feel that breeze. Its not too hot.

Gabe: Ok whatever (pissed off).

Sheriff 1: Knowing what I know do you think that's suspicious?

Gabe: Eh, Ok I'll give you that much - but only from your point of view.

-------

So he goes and runs my info and the other cop is at my passenger window which is still rolled up doin' a plain view search. So I made his life easier and rolled down the window! I said hi and we BS-ed for a while about the drug problem and my commute down here. Then I asked him if he'd ever heard of a supreme court case called People V. Battle. He said no. I explained to him that the ruling, which has been upheld, states that infractions are not crimes. I then told him that Section 201 of the Govenment Code says that the State can only punish for crimes. So, therefore, infractions are not crimes. He totally missed the point and continue to BS with me about some of the cases he had come across - old war stories.

He then told me that he will never issue a ticket he knows won't stick. Funny, after that they wrote down my information in a little flip notebook and didn't give me a ticket. They tried to scare me by saying that even being parked on the side of the road they had the RIGHT to pull me over and ticket me for infractions. I said, "fine, whatever" and drove into the public parking lot and parked 20-feet away from them. Ha!

NO TICKET!!!!! Stupid idiots don't even know the law they are purportedly enforcing. What a load of crap. I didn't get my snooze, but I got 20 minutes of entertainment paid for by the San Diego Sheriff's Department.

redy2fiyt · #2 03-22-2007, 02:08 PM

PS. Credit to Cody for the information on People V Battle and the Government Code.

redy2fiyt · #3 03-22-2007, 03:11 PM

Here's the letter I am sending the department. Any thoughts?

I'll be courtesy copying the Lieutenant, and maybe the DA.

Codee · #4 03-22-2007, 06:33 PM

Looks good but you also want to SERVE it and not just send it.

Then it will be effective for the future.

Also look into People v. Sava.

The issue of infractins is settled there in fewer words.

Also do a search for cases citing Battle and Sava.

Codee · #5 03-22-2007, 06:38 PM

PS Ready2...

Peope V. Battle is listed as 50 CAl App 3rd Supp1 for pages. That is a ringer.

"50 Cal App 3rd" tells us it is an appellate court ruling.

The "supp1" tells us that the appellate court was not a California Appellate court but rather a superior court sitting as an appeal court. A very law level ruling. IT IS NOT A SUPREME COURT CASE.

People v. Sava however was issued by a California Appellate court. It packs a bigger punch.

redy2fiyt · #6 03-23-2007, 08:35 AM

Thanks Cody!

How exactly would I serve this letter on the Department? Should I have someone bring it directly to the Captain?

Codee · #7 03-23-2007, 01:05 PM

Have someone else mail it with return reciept requested.

Then have other person fill out affidavit of sevice by first class mail.

redy2fiyt · #8 03-26-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Codee

Have someone else mail it with return reciept requested.

Then have other person fill out affidavit of sevice by first class mail.

Thanks Codee. Your help and knowlege is appreciated.

redy2fiyt · #9 03-26-2007, 10:05 AM

Codee,

While searching for People V Sava I found an interesting judgement by the California Appellate Court:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B188431.PDF

It was published on February 6, 2007 but was not to be published in the official records. Ergo, it cannot be cited.

There are some interesting judgements made regarding People V Sava as well as People V Battle. Specifically, that the Penal Code was recently revised making infractions a public offense and thereby warranting an arrest.

It is understood that traffic court is a criminal court and that from other threads, you can show that infractions are typically civil. Therefore, an SMJ arguement would be a satisfactory defense. However, in the case of my letter I am drafting to the SD Sheriff Department, I'm not sure that my arguement is valid anymore.

What do you think?

Codee · #10 03-26-2007, 01:58 PM

OK Ready2fite

You are now all the way brought up to speed.

1) does a phrase "No person may CONVICTED of..." Mean "no person may be tried for" Reread the case you provided and think on that while you do. The whole Battle case may not have been necessary.

Next I believe that CPC16 was ammended to add "Public offenses) where as before it just stated "crimes."

So are public offenses crimes? In the opinion you posted there is a "Public offense (Crimes)" in there however why is crimes in parenthisis instead of being offset with a comma?

So is a public offense a crime?

Can one be convicted of a pubic offense without a jury trial?

Can one be tried and not convicted of a public offense without a jury trial?

Then look into the cases and make sure that the LATEST enacted law is the one that is being given effect.