Calif. Court OKs Traffic Arrests{California Supreme Court }

http://www.abcnews.go.com ^ | March 4 2002 | AP

[Sandy]

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.

[Razz]

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.

[fire_eye]

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...

[TaxPayer2000]

I agree, and agree, and agree

did I mention that I happen to agree?

[snopercod]

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.

[VA Advogado]

You got nothing dog. You're gasping for air. Show me what you got.

[VA Advogado]

You continue to marginalize yourself Eric. Clean up your mess and got to bed or whatever you do.

[VA Advogado]

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.

[VA Advogado]

Lawful arrests generally begin with lawful stops. Once you master logic perhaps we can move on to the legal stuff.

[Sandy]

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.

[CFW]

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

[Joe Hadenuf]

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

[Demidog]

I'll get you you wascawy wabbit!

[Lurker]

I'll start respecting them when they earn it.

L