Posted on 03/04/2002 11:16:46 AM PST by CFW
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:07:28 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The California Supreme Court on Monday upheld the arrest of a bicyclist for not having identification when he was pulled over for pedaling in the wrong direction on a one-way street.
The ruling upheld a state law allowing officers to arrest and search vehicle-code offenders who do not have identification. The infraction is punishable by a $100 fine.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
......still waiting for salutes....waiting...
In cases such as this, I am of the opinion that government should absolutely and unequivocally enforce every single law which has been passed and is on the books, equally. For a State or the Federal government to do otherwise invalidates the complete concept of equality under the Law. If the citizens of the State of California do not agree with any such law in question, then the only legal recourse that they have is to have the Legislature revoke the law, or only in the event that the Law is truly illegal under the State's constitution, the State Supreme Courts overturn it (which, I assume, the Courts have decided cannot be done under the jurisdiction of the California Constitution).
The Court itself has further justified its position in relation to a Supreme Court ruling correctly stating that State laws such as this are not a violation of the 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - I see no violation of this text here.)
(The State's constitution is its supreme law - if the Law in question does not comply with the State constitution, then it is invalid, and should be struck down by the court. Otherwise, the State supreme court has no authority to strike down the law, and the issue must be considered by a Federal court.)
:) ttt
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you see any mention of bicycle here?
And I do not believe "persons" as set out in that outdated 4th amendment, means those cute little bicycling shorts. /sarcasm.
Was he really? I'm positive that you don't know that for certain, just as I am POSITIVE that his lawyer would lie to give that impression.
I'm more willing to bet that he was searched under the suspicion that he was under the influence of illegal substances (which, of course, being illegal, constitutes proper cause for a search. You don't like it? Get enough people together and change the law!)
:) ttt
B137511 (Super. Ct. No. YA040916)
* * * FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
At approximately 6 p.m. on June 19, 1999, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Valento observed appellant riding a bicycle in the wrong direction on a residential street. Deputy Valento initiated a traffic stop intending to issue a citation for this violation of section 21650.1. The deputy asked appellant for identification. Appellant gave his name and date of birth, but stated he did not have any written identification with him. Deputy Valento then took appellant into custody, in accordance with section 40302, based on his failure “to present his driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.”
During a search incident to the arrest, Deputy Valento recovered a clear cellophane baggie from appellant’s sock. The baggie contained methamphetamine. The deputy placed appellant in the back of his patrol car. He then “ran” appellant’s name and date of birth through a computer in the patrol car, and received an address consistent with the address appellant had given and a general description which matched appellant.
Appellant was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine, with allegations that he had suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction and that he had served two prior prison terms. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, appellant entered a guilty plea and admitted the prior conviction allegations. He was sentenced to the low term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months as a second strike. The court struck the prior prison term allegations. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. * * *
Yeah, the guy was probably scum of the earth.
But,this is the part I have a problem with... "Deputy Valento then took appellant into custody, in accordance with section 40302, based on his failure “to present his driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.”
But,this is the part I have a problem with... "Deputy Valento then took appellant into custody, in accordance with section 40302, based on his failure "to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination."
Why do you have a problem with it? It was a law passed by the People of California, via their Legislators. (If you don't live in California, then worry no more, because this law doesn't affect you, so long as you keep a vigilant watch on your own legislators. If not, then...) If the Citizens of the State of California decide as a whole that they don't like this law, then it's high time for them to organize and protest it to Sacramento, with enough of a flood of e-mails, phone calls, and faxes to persuade their Legislators to work with due haste in revoking it. If it's not possible to drum up that support, then relocation just might be the key (to Hell with California, anyway ;) - Kidding, of course!)
Hope this helps. (I'm not pro-police, I'm pro-equality "under the law" - If a law is passed by the Legislature of a state [or, by the federal Congress], then it absolutely should be enforced with complete equality on each and every citizen under its jurisdiction, until the stench of the Law reaches high enough for enough people to be sick of it and have it repealed. That's my take on the Legislative process in a nutshell, in any case..)
:) ttt
"I respectfully dissent.
The majority hold that the search of appellant was valid based on his arrest pursuant to Vehicle Code section 40302.2 They are persuaded that the issue of whether the officer was entitled to arrest appellant is resolved by the majority decision in People v. Monroe (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1174. They find no flaw in its reasoning and fail to recognize the paradoxical consequences to its application here.
As the majority accurately recite, the arresting deputy sheriff observed appellant at 6 p.m. on June 19, 1999, riding a bicycle in the wrong direction on a residential public street. The deputy initiated a stop intending to issue appellant a citation for violation of section 21650.1.3 Appellant stopped the bicycle. The deputy approached him and asked “if [appellant] had any identification on him.” Appellant responded that “he didn’t have any I.D. on him.” However, appellant did tell the deputy his name and birthdate. At that point the deputy arrested appellant pursuant to section 40302. Appellant was handcuffed, searched, and placed in the back of the patrol car.
Before leaving the location where appellant had been arrested, the deputy accessed the computer in his patrol car and verified that appellant was, in fact, who he said he was. The information corresponded to the address appellant had given the deputy and to appellant’s height, weight, and race. No citation for any vehicular offense was issued and the deputy dropped off the bicycle at the location that appellant had told him was his destination. Appellant remained in custody and was criminally charged based on the result of the search conducted after he was placed under arrest.
The problem with the application of section 40302 as a basis for arrest is that appellant was not required to have a motor vehicle license (or its functional equivalent). Therefore, the rationale of the Monroe court is irrelevant if not erroneous. The court in People v. Monroe, supra, 12 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1183, observed that, “Though courts have considered the application of section 40302 in a variety of contexts, there has been no definitive interpretation of the phrase ‘satisfactory evidence of his identity,’ nor any explanation of the procedure to be followed by an officer who seeks to obtain such evidence.” The Monroe court proceeded to interpret the statute and concluded that a person detained for a traffic violation may not avoid arrest and cannot simply sign a promise to appear unless a driver’s license or its functional equivalent is produced for examination. (Id. at p. 1188.) Monroe further held that section 40302 only requires the deputy to inquire if the person detained has a driver’s license or “some form of written identification which is its equivalent.” (Id. at p. 1188.) Any other inquiry is optional and may or may not be sufficient to allow the person detained to be cited and released on a promise to appear.
I respectfully suggest that Monroe fails both to consider the application of section 40302 to bicycle riders and pedestrians and to recognize the implication of its application to passengers in a car. Where is it written that anyone other than an operator of a motor vehicle is required to have on his person a driver’s license? Where is the law that requires anyone who want to use the public streets to obtain an identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, optionally available pursuant to section 13000 et seq.? What requires one who is merely a passenger in a car to carry identification? There are no such requirements.
Monroe went astray when it failed to consider certain provisions for statutory construction which it recites. “The words should be construed in context, and should be given such ‘interpretation as will promote rather than defeat the general purpose and policy of the law.’ [Citation.] Where uncertainty exists, consideration should be given to the consequence that will flow from a particular interpretation; the result of the interpretation should be reasonable, and where several constructions are possible, that which leads to the more reasonable result should be adopted. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1184.)
The obvious purpose of section 40302 is to avoid the inconvenience and intrusion of an arrest where only a minor traffic violation occurs. The Monroe court acknowledges that is the general understanding of the law. (Id. at pp. 1184-1185.) Therefore, a less restricted application would impose a minimal duty to inquire if the person detained can provide other information of identity to avoid an arrest by having the officer issue a citation and the detainee execute a promise to appear. In other words, a less restricted application would lead to a more reasonable result.
The dissent in Monroe recognized that information of identity is easily verified. “In today’s computer age the officer in the field has a host of readily available methods of verifying the identity of a person who does not happen to have written identification in his possession.” (Id. at p. 1199 [dis. opn. of Smith, Acting P.J.]; see also State v. Walker (Tenn. 2000) 12 S.W.3d 460.) Certainly the facts here prove that is so. If the deputy had resorted to the computer in his patrol car before arresting and searching appellant, appellant would have been issued a citation and allowed to sign a promise to appear. If the deputy’s inquiry otherwise provided information bearing on the probability of appellant’s not appearing as promised, then the deputy could exercise his discretion to arrest appellant. That too would be reviewable, but against circumstances that would not depend on appellant having “official papers” for the deputy to examine.
A pinched interpretation of section 40302 is simply contrary to a free society’s notion of individual liberty. As the United States Supreme Court put it, “[p]olice powers in many countries are exercised in ways that we would find intolerable and indeed violative of constitutional rights. To take only one example, a large number of nations do not share our belief in the freedom of movement and travel, requiring persons to carry identification cards at all times.” (Foley v. Connelie (1978) 435 U.S. 291, 300, fn. 9.)
The motion to suppress should have been granted." VOGEL (C.S.), P.J.
This is a classic California battle. Bicycle riders believe they are annointed and superior because they ride non-poluting transportation. There are paths everywhere and demonstrations to exercise their rights. The cops treat them just like car drivers and, in many jurisdictions, enjoy sticking it to them. The bicycle drivers demand their rights as vehicle operators and many cops see to it that they also live upto their responsibilities. Going the wrong way on a one way street is a problem; so is failing to have proper ID while operating a vehicle.
This is an interesting point, and it depends entirely on the wording of the law in question, and the other Codes on the books in the State of California (all other states and jurisdictions excluded). If there is a requirement in the Code of California which mandates some form of licensing for bicycling (which I doubt there is), then the above is incorrect. On the other hand, if the law under question in this case is not specific enough, it could possibly have applicability to the case in question, and the above statement is incorrect. If neither, than this dissent is correct, and the California Supreme Court is possibly in error (and it is the only court which can reconsider its cases in the State of California - A Federal court would have to review the case if SCOCAL refuses to review the case again...)
I am not familiar enough with the Codes of California to definitively weigh this one way or another. If you are, please enlighten me on the relationship between this disputed law, and the other public roads and identification laws on the books in that State. (Virginia's code, which I am familiar with, is irrelevant here, unfortunately. :) )
:) ttt
An additional thought on this topic- If the State of California mandates that persons operating on public roads provide a form if identification, or requires those using public roads to operate under certain standards similar to Motor Vehicles regulations, then the above statement would be correct, and this Court would be acting correctly.
Food for thought, in any case. I'm gonna peruse California law and see what I can come up with...
(The only state in the Nation with as many Regulations as the formal Soviet Union. This outta be fun... ;) )
:) ttt
...or a form of identification...
;) ttt
There has to be some way to enforce the existing laws. And, I further agree that a law like this is fine and in keeping with the founding documents. I believe the Founding Fathers would be in agreement, if you don’t like the laws, move to another state.
Your point is certainly valid, I just come down on the other side. We’ll agree to disagree.
Owl_Eagle
”Guns Before Butter.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.