Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calif. Court OKs Traffic Arrests{California Supreme Court }
http://www.abcnews.go.com ^ | March 4 2002 | AP

Posted on 03/04/2002 1:36:53 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK

S A N   F R A N C I S C O, March 4

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 last
To: VA Advogado
The search was pursuant to a lawful stop.

There's no such Constitutional thing as a "search pursuant to a lawful stop". You're confusing a "search pursuant to a lawful arrest" with the phrase that you just made up. Lawful arrest. Absent a lawful arrest, there should at least be probable cause. This case involved neither.

81 posted on 03/04/2002 9:04:27 PM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: max61
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.

82 posted on 03/04/2002 9:23:25 PM PST by Razz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Razz
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...

83 posted on 03/04/2002 10:53:26 PM PST by fire_eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
I agree, and agree, and agree

did I mention that I happen to agree?

84 posted on 03/04/2002 11:32:23 PM PST by TaxPayer2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CFW;First_Salute
Thanks for posting that.

Question: Do all those liberal democrats in the california legislature support these police-state tactics? They could amend the law if they chose to.

Yeah...that's what I thought.

85 posted on 03/05/2002 1:08:04 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #86 Removed by Moderator

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: Demidog
You got nothing dog. You're gasping for air. Show me what you got.
90 posted on 03/05/2002 2:58:37 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: EricOKC
You continue to marginalize yourself Eric. Clean up your mess and got to bed or whatever you do.
91 posted on 03/05/2002 2:59:51 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: krb
It's good that being a fool is not illegal

And if being a fool was taxed, not only would you have no sense, you would have no dollars.

92 posted on 03/05/2002 3:01:20 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Lawful arrests generally begin with lawful stops. Once you master logic perhaps we can move on to the legal stuff.
93 posted on 03/05/2002 3:03:52 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
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.

94 posted on 03/05/2002 4:07:04 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
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

95 posted on 03/05/2002 4:10:56 AM PST by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: xcon
There was a thread about that a few days ago. Seemed pretty stupid and wrong to fine the parents for something the kid said.

Not only that, according to this article, the Texas kid was eventually arrested and jailed and the parents fined all becuase they claimed the kid used a bad word!!!!!

Does anyone see a problem here?

Insane

96 posted on 03/05/2002 7:38:59 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
I'll get you you wascawy wabbit!
97 posted on 03/05/2002 7:43:31 AM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
I'll start respecting them when they earn it.

L

98 posted on 03/05/2002 8:43:47 AM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson