Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[weishaupt1776]

185.01* Legislative declaration.--

(1)**It is hereby found and declared by the Legislature that police officers as hereinafter defined perform both state and municipal functions; that they make arrests for violations of state traffic laws on public highways; that they keep the public peace; that they conserve both life and property; and that their activities are vital to public welfare of this state. Therefore the Legislature declares that it is a proper and legitimate state purpose to provide a uniform retirement system for the benefit of police officers as hereinafter defined and intends, in implementing the provisions of s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution as they relate to municipal police officers' retirement trust fund systems and plans, that such retirement systems or plans be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of police officers' retirement trust funds. Therefore, the Legislature hereby determines and declares that the provisions of this act fulfill an important state interest.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

185.01* Legislative declaration.--

(1)**It is hereby found and declared by the Legislature that police officers as hereinafter defined perform both state and municipal functions; that they make arrests for violations of state traffic laws on public highways; that they keep the public peace; that they conserve both life and property; and that their activities are vital to public welfare of this state. Therefore the Legislature declares that it is a proper and legitimate state purpose to provide a uniform retirement system for the benefit of police officers as hereinafter defined and intends, in implementing the provisions of s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution as they relate to municipal police officers' retirement trust fund systems and plans, that such retirement systems or plans be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of police officers' retirement trust funds. Therefore, the Legislature hereby determines and declares that the provisions of this act fulfill an important state interest.

This statement of ``found and declared'' is NOT about protecting citizens; it's about protecting the retirement fund - PLEASE note that well!

and btw, in Pennsylvania, the supreme court said that police have no duty to protect one's private life.

[weishaupt1776]

Download the attachment to fully comprehend how a traffic stop is an arrest

[squirrel]

Yep, sure is.
Heres something from Search and Seizure by John Wesley Hall.

1:12. -Police stops of automobiles.
Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants is a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the following stops of vehicles have been found to be "seizures" of the occupants of the vehicles: a stop to check the driver's license, a traffic stop, an investigative stop, an immigration stop either at a checkpoint or on the highway near the border, and sobriety checkpoints and other such roadblocks. Th brevity of the stop does not prevent it from being a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.

Traffic stop = Terry stop.
Terry v Ohio (1968) 392 US 1, 20 L Ed 2d 889, 88 S Ct 1868, 44 Ohio Ops 2d 383.

[weishaupt1776]

318.18 Amount of civil penalties.-
1. If a person who is cited for a violation of s. 320.0605 or s. 320.07 can show proof of having a valid registration at the time of arrest
2. If a person who is cited for a violation of s. 322.03, s. 322.065, or s. 322.15 can show a driver's license issued to him or her and valid at the time of arrest

[Codee]

Looks like I may be a couple months late on this but these are court views on different aspects of California traffic arrests. My added emphasis is in BOLD

*First, Traffic stops are arrests, and they are "costodial."

P.C. 834. "An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person."


Ninth Circut Court of Appeals Nos. 95-55946,
95-55947. held that:
"Under California law, a traffic citation is considered an "arrest," see Cal. Pen.Code s 853.5 (West Supp.1996), for which an officer must have probable cause. See, e.g., People v. Parnell, 16 Cal.App.4th 862, 875, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 302, 309 (1993)."

The cicut court however got it wrong. A citation is not an arrest, but a release from arrest.

P.C. 836.5.(c) "In any case in which a person is arrested pursuant to subdivision (a) and the person arrested does not demand to be taken before a magistrate, the public officer or employee making the arrest shall prepare a written notice to appear and release the person on his or her promise to appear, as prescribed by Chapter 5C (commencing with Section 853.5)."

P.C. 853.5. (a) "Except as otherwise provided by law, in any case in which a person is arrested for an offense declared to be an infraction, the person may be released according to the procedures set forth by this chapter for the release of persons arrested for an offense declared to be a misdemeanor."

*The above talks about you once you have been arrested. The following is the the code that police use to claim they have been given the authority to arrest for infractions in California.

P.C. 19.7. "Except as otherwise provided by law, all provisions of law relating to misdemeanors shall apply to infractions including, but not limited to, powers of peace officers..."

Coupled with

P.C. 836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person ... pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following cir***stances occur:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence..."

Now observe what probable cause is

U.S. Supreme Court
BECK v. OHIO, 379 U.S. 89 (1964)
"Whether that arrest was constitutionally valid depends in turn upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it - whether at that moment the facts and cir***stances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed or was committing an offense. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 -176; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 102 ."

Traffic infractions are not "pulic offenses" which is to say they are not "offenses" because they are deffinitly not private offenses (Although they really probably are offenses against the "state" in private buisness and not the public people but the court can't say that) This is represented in People v. Battle 50 Cal. App. 3rd Supp.1 and was subsequently upheld by the California Supreme Court
"we must conclude that it was not the intent of the Legislature to enact inconsistent statutes and, further, that when it added the term "public offense" to section 16 it was not so categorizing infractions because if it did so, it would have caused inconsistency between sections 19c and 689 of the Penal Code." [People v. Battle 50 Cal. App. 3rd Supp.1]

So no probable cause to arrest exists there. Also the concept of civil arrest was only used historically and only in post judgment cir***stances to secure a an adjudicated debt. Civil arrest is also an affront to your privacy. The following case applies to a home invasion but is insiteful.

WELSH v. WISCONSIN, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)

"Held: The warrantless, nighttime entry of petitioner's home to arrest him for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense, was prohibited by the special protection afforded the individual in his home by the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 748-754."

To add to Codee's post


■ California Penal Code (CPC) 1463 states:
The following definitions shall apply to terms used in this chapter:
(a) "Arrest" means any law enforcement action, including issuance of a notice to appear or notice of violation, which results in a criminal charge....



■ California Vehicle Code (CVC) 40600.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer who has successfully completed a course or courses of instruction, approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in the investigation of traffic accidents may prepare, in triplicate, on a form approved by the Judicial Council, a written notice to appear when the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that any person involved in a traffic accident has violated a provision of this code not declared to be a felony or a local ordinance and the violation was a factor in the occurrence of the traffic accident. ...

■ California Vehicle Code (CVC) 40300.5
In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:
(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage property unless immediately
arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.



Obviously, the presence of drugs is essential too!

[weishaupt1776]

More stuff
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/125768-post20.html
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...t-part-ii.html

[ThomPaine]

the nuts and bolts that I picked off the floor:

an officer has the power to arrest or detain a 'driver' if he has a reasonable belief that they committed an 'offence' However an offence is (typically) a public offense, which traffic violations are not, therefore the officer has no lawful authority to detain or arrest you based on his allegation that you committed a traffic offence.

Check your local traffic laws and codes, not to be construed as legal advice..

Thom

[Lawdog]

Haha, Thom. I don't recommend that at all. Here's what Georgia law actually says about traffic tickets and what happens if you refuse to sign:

Georgia Code 40-13-2.1

Signature of person who is issued a citation required - failure to sign - out-of-state drivers.
(a) A person who is issued a citation as provided in this chapter or Code Section 17-6-11, relating to display of driver's license in lieu of bail, shall sign the citation to acknowledge receipt of the citation and of his or her obligation to appear for trial. The officer shall advise the person that signing the citation is not an admission of guilt and that failure to sign will result in the person having to post a cash bond. If the person refuses to sign the citation, it shall constitute reasonable cause to believe that the person will not appear at trial and the officer may bring the person before a judicial officer or traffic violations bureau to post a bond as is otherwise provided by law.

So don't be a schmuck. Yes, the officer has every right to pull you over for a suspected traffic violation. And sign the damn ticket. It's not an admission of guilt. And if you refuse, the cop can and will arrest you and make you post bond, which takes a hell of a lot longer than signing your name.