Calif. Court OKs Traffic Arrests{California Supreme Court }

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.

The decision "is probably the price we're paying for 9-11," said Richard Fitzer, attorney for defendant Conrad McKay, referring to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The justices, ruling 6-1, also said the methamphetamine an officer found on McKay after his arrest in Los Angeles County could be used against him in court. McKay was sentenced to nearly three years after pleading guilty to a drug charge.

The high court followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that validated a Texas motorist's arrest for not being buckled up, a 5-4 ruling that said police can arrest and handcuff people for minor traffic offenses.

"We conclude, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court precedent, that custodial arrests for fine-only offenses do not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the majority.

While at the same time the law is being applied to you for pedaling a bike down the street the wrong way, 45 robberies, 15 rapes and 4 murders are being committed. What a great way to expend government resources. You do work for the government don't you?.

In the small town where I used to live ( less than 1500 people ), every cop on duty was present at a major bust: four high school kids caught with a pack of cigarrettes on the dash of their pickup.

While the town's finest were harrassing these kids, 3 of the towns business were professionally burglarized. Two of those businesses later closed, probably at least partially due to the losses and damage incurred in the burglaries.

All of the kids continue to smoke, now legally since they're all over 18.

While the town's finest were harrassing these kids, 3 of the towns business were professionally burglarized.

Yeah... And why do we pay cops to sit by the side of the road pointing a radar gun at cars instead of following up on all the theft reports that they never do anything about? Oh, I forgot - there's "Revenue" to be had from traffic tickets, but all they'd be doing in the other case would be alleviating human misery. Silly me.

Sometimes I wonder, if I didn't have any I.D. or anyone who could identify me, if Our Beloved Government (all bow...) would simply hold me in jail forever since I couldn't identify myself... or would they simply give up at some point? Does the Government (On your knees, scum!) really want to feed and house people forever just because they can't produce their "Papers"?

And how many people does the Government (On your FACE, worms!!) think it can warehouse in this fashion? We may get a chance to find out, if Ubergruppenfuehrers Daschle and Gephardt manage to get their National-Socialist ID card - there are going to be a lot of people who will simply go to jail and stay there rather than meekly submit...

You said, "At the time he was stopped he was in the process of committing a violation of law...The search was pursuant to a lawful stop. Case closed." This is simply incorrect. Absent probable cause, it is not Constitutional to search someone pursuant to a lawful stop. So, the officer could not legally conduct a search until after the guy was arrested for another offense, i.e., not having the proper papers. But, since California law doesn't require bicyclists to carry papers, the arrest for not carrying papers is not lawful.

Bottom line, you can't arrest a person for not doing something that the person is not required to do. Let's say, for instance, that you are arrested for being in public without a beard. Now there's no law that requires you to actually have a beard, but what the heck, you're arrested anyway for public beardlessness. That would be an unlawful arrest, and any search pursuant to such an unlawful arrest is itself unlawful.

He wasn't charged with a license violation.

This is what I posted on another thread.....

From the case:

THE PEOPLE,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.CONRAD RICHARD McKAY

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.” 12 posted on 3/4/02 3:43 PM Eastern by CFW

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.