Arrested for getting stuck in the snow??

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Dear layman, you’re a “layman” nuff said

Well, you DID write:

"That’s beside the point, he violated my civil rights"

Given that statement, it is only fair to ask: Which one(s)?

Most people throw the term, "civil rights", into a discussion or diatribe without really knowing what it means. You are not the only one to do that. In this case, I don't see a civil rights violation of any kind. You are certainly free to consult an attorney (at great expense) to see whether someone will take the case in a civil suit but expect to pay up front to the tune of $10,000 for trial prep. - more if it actually goes to trial.

Here is a definition of "civil rights" from [url]www.uslegalforms.com:[/url]

Civil rights include those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular protected group or class. Statutes on the state and federal levels have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances, sexual preference.

If you Google the term for a legal definition you will come back with a lot of hits - but this one pretty much sums them up.

- Carl

[tranquility]

I agree with the forum that it does not appear that his civil rights were violated.

But if there was no probable cause for the arrest, the civil right would be the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure as applied to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Civil rights in the context of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit in addition to the list Carl supplied would also include federal stautory rights.

[CdwJava]

However, given the circumstances as outlined by the poster, even HIS version of events provides sufficient cause to articulate the elements of PC 148(a). Even if the case is dropped by the DA it is unlikely that he will be able to make a successful claim for a 1983 action. And even an unsuccessful claim will cost him thousands of dollars in attorney fees ... unless he wants to do it himself which will be a minefield in the fderal court system.

Almost everyone claims their rights were violated when they were arrested; few can make the matter stick in court ... very few. Probable cause is a very minimal thing.

- Carl

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I agree with the forum that it does not appear that his civil rights were violated.

But if there was no probable cause for the arrest, the civil right would be the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure as applied to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Civil rights in the context of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit in addition to the list Carl supplied would also include federal stautory rights.

There is no 4th amendment violation, the arrest was lawful as was the request to see his liscense, registration and insurance. It is 279.99 miles from Ft Bragg Ca to Lake Almanor CA, kind of suspitious to be off the main road in a US forest, in an expensive vehicle, not prepared for the snow, along a backroads route to NV and to refuse to comply with the reasonable request to the Federal Agent.

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

However, given the circumstances as outlined by the poster, even HIS version of events provides sufficient cause to articulate the elements of PC 148(a). Even if the case is dropped by the DA it is unlikely that he will be able to make a successful claim for a 1983 action. And even an unsuccessful claim will cost him thousands of dollars in attorney fees ... unless he wants to do it himself which will be a minefield in the fderal court system.

Almost everyone claims their rights were violated when they were arrested; few can make the matter stick in court ... very few. Probable cause is a very minimal thing.

- Carl

It's not like we havent had a few high profile cases of people getting lost in the snow and having to be rescued, the most recent case, the people rescued were actually wanted in AZ. For all we know, OP was on a joy ride since he lied about where he resided.

[tranquility]

rmet4nzkx wrote:
It is 279.99 miles from Ft Bragg Ca to Lake Almanor CA, kind of suspitious to be off the main road in a US forest, in an expensive vehicle, not prepared for the snow, along a backroads route to NV and to refuse to comply with the reasonable request to the Federal Agent.

Please articulate the reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity is afoot and the person is or is about to be involved with that criminal activity. Remember that "mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith."

Do not include the refusal to comply with the "reasonable request" as people are free to ignore such things from the government in a free society. If that "request" is instead a "demand", please supply the authority for each demand.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Please articulate the reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity is afoot and the person is or is about to be involved with that criminal activity. Remember that "mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith."

Do not include the refusal to comply with the "reasonable request" as people are free to ignore such things from the government in a free society. If that "request" is instead a "demand", please supply the authority for each demand.

Without knowing what else the officer knew or suspected through his observations, I think it's safe to say that either the vehicle was obstructing the roadway or was off the roadway in violation of any one of a number of CVC sections or federal laws governing access off road or to the forest. As such, it was reasonable for the officer to ask for registration and identification and the OP's failure to provide such would constitute PC 148(a). If the officer had no lawful need for the information and was simply bored and passing the time, then I can see an argument in favor of the defense. In this case, it would be easy to articulate reasonable suspicion.


- Carl

[tranquility]

CdwJava wrote:
Without knowing what else the officer knew or suspected through his observations, I think it's safe to say that either the vehicle was obstructing the roadway or was off the roadway in violation of any one of a number of CVC sections or federal laws governing access off road or to the forest. As such, it was reasonable for the officer to ask for registration and identification and the OP's failure to provide such would constitute PC 148(a). If the officer had no lawful need for the information and was simply bored and passing the time, then I can see an argument in favor of the defense. In this case, it would be easy to articulate reasonable suspicion.

I utterly agree. I'd be willing to bet there was some violation, or probable cause to believe there was a violation making everything else moot. As I wrote in my first post, if so, he should try to deal.

I also believe with the trooper's training and experience he could come up with a reasonable suspicion. "I've been patroling in these woods for 100 years and, in all that time, I've come to the conclusion that Range Rovers are used by smugglers bringing fruits in from out of state without going through inspection."--type of thing. But, I don't see the RS from what he wrote. That doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means that I don't see it from what was written.

Now, the CVC section I supplied may or may not apply. If so, we have the right to "demand" some info that OP "delayed" in providing. Does it apply? Was the federal guy a "peace officer", was OP a "driver" and was he in "immediate control" of the vehicle? If not, we need more information to see if the Constitution was violated by the officer.

[CdwJava]

I live and work at the base of a National Forest and their officers/rangers ARE peace officers under CA law. If this guy was a maintenance employee then he obviously had no right to request the information and PC 148(a) would not apply at all. However, I cannot imagine a maintenance employee making such a demand in the first place. Hence, I suspect that this fellow was indeed a federal officer and thus had both the right and the authority to make the request and to expect compliance.

And, just based on what was written, I DO see reasonable suspicion as OP was OFF the road (though he states he was on another roadway). If he was ON a public roadway, then he is obstructing that roadway ... if he is OFF the road then he has left the roadway and is in violation of an off-road statute or of Forest rules - in either case the officer had the right to request the information as he had reasonable suspicion that an offense was being committed in his presence. I am sure there was more to it than that (from the officer's perspective) but just from what the OP wrote, his stuck vehicle was all that was needed for reasonable suspicion.

- Carl

[tranquility]

Carl, I'll take your training and experience that a stopped vehicle either on the road or off is reasonable suspicion that a crime is or will be committed in your presence

However, you forced me to look up whether the person described is a peace officer under the vehicle code. The CVC uses CPC 830 et seq. as it's definition of a "peace officer". When I scan those sections, I don't see a specific description of the described federal officer there. I do find:

"830.8. (a) Federal criminal investigators and law enforcement
officers are not California peace officers, but may exercise the
powers of arrest of a peace officer in any of the following
circumstances:"

I agree they can make an arrest, but they don't seem to be a peace officer where the power to ask for registration under the CVC section I mentioned earlier would apply. There may be a federal or other statute which gives them the right, but it's not the one I supplied earlier.

[CdwJava]

If you read further down you will find that:

(b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
jurisdiction the property is situated.

Many of these officers have met the training requirements in 832. Even if they do not ...

PC 830.8 states that these federal officers may exercises powers of arrest in ...

(1) Any circumstances specified in Section 836 or Section 5150 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code for violations of state or local
laws.

And PC 836 says ...

836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a
warrant, or, 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
circumstances 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.

By definition, a traffic infraction IS a criminal offense in CA. Therefore, the National Forest Officer sees a criminal offense being committed in his presence and is thus provided the lawful ability under CA law to effect the arrest (preceded by the detention).

And to forestall the next argument regarding the exception after 830.8(d):

This subdivision does not apply to federal officers of the Bureau
of Land Management or the Forest Service of the Department of
Agriculture. These officers have no authority to enforce California
statutes without the written consent of the sheriff or the chief of
police in whose jurisdiction they are assigned.

I can guarantee that such an arrangement exists.

- Carl

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I agree they can make an arrest, but they don't seem to be a peace officer where the power to ask for registration under the CVC section I mentioned earlier would apply. There may be a federal or other statute which gives them the right, but it's not the one I supplied earlier.

I think what may be important in tranquility's point is; what authority is given the forest worker under federal guidelines . The CVC involvement may be irrelevant.

As far as those that had doubts in considering the OP as a "driver" or "in control" of the vehicle.

First, the OP never mentioned denying this. In fact he reinforced it by stating the requested materials were in the vehicle. As being a "driver"; why would this be any different than a person getting out of a vehicle after an accident before police arrive and then go for the "phantom driver" story.

Now if the fed has the authority to enforce the CVC, I suspect even California has one of those "diving too fast for conditions" or "failure to control vehicle" catch all laws that the fed agent was investigating. This would have given him the authority to ask for the documents as well.

This is from the Forest Service Manual ([url]http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r5/fsm/5300/5300_zero_code.html):[/url]

FSM 5300 - LAW ENFORCEMENT

R5 SUPPLEMENT 5300-96-1

EFFECTIVE 08/05/96


ZERO CODE


5301 - AUTHORITY. Forest Service law enforcement authority also exists when:


3. Law enforcement personnel, who meet the guidelines and requirements contained in California Penal Code, section 830.8(a) and 830.8(b) for State Peace Officer authority are:


a. In the performance of their Federal law enforcement authority, and


b. Observe violations of State or local laws incidental to that authority, and


c. Have written consent, when applicable, from the respective sheriff or chief of police.


Title 16, United States Code, section 551a, section 559d(5), and section 559g(c) authorize the enforcement of State and local laws, ordinances, or regulations.


5303.12 - Enforcement Activities.


10. Law enforcement personnel who are assigned to the Pacific Southwest Region and meet the requirements outlined in FSM 5301, paragraph 3, may enforce State and local laws, ordinances, or regulations.

Obviously there are some qualifiers in there that need to be answered but I would suspect they have been taken care of properly. I'm not sure but I think that advises the Forestry agents they do have the authority to enforce CVC.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Obviously there are some qualifiers in there that need to be answered but I would suspect they have been taken care of properly. I'm not sure but I think that advises the Forestry agents they do have the authority to enforce CVC.

They do.

As I said I work near the headquarters of a National Forest and their officers regularly enforce the Vehicle Code, the Penal Code, and even the Fish and Game Code on Forest land within the county. And the BLM agents do likewise on the local BLM land ... though I rarely have contact with any of their people and I cannot be sure that they even have a regular law enforcement officer assigned locally.

- Carl

[tranquility]

I'll go along with both CdwJava and justalayman on the ability to arrest and to enforce the laws and assume there is a written agreement as Carl says making the federal officer a peace officer. Ah the hazards when you write down your thought process.

I like justalayman's thinking on "immediate control" and "driver" but am concerned about the implications (i.e. is one driving drunk if you are over a .08 and are sititng outside of your car?) enough to not agree with him before doing a little work.

I resubmit my original post on the matter.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I'll go along with both CdwJava and justalayman on the ability to arrest and to enforce the laws and assume there is a written agreement as Carl says making the federal officer a peace officer. Ah the hazards when you write down your thought process.

I like justalayman's thinking on "immediate control" and "driver" but am concerned about the implications (i.e. is one driving drunk if you are over a .08 and are sititng outside of your car?) enough to not agree with him before doing a little work.

I resubmit my original post on the matter.

That's what is cool about this board, watching the thought processes at work. Each poster often builds upon the foundation of the previous. I used yours to know where to chase for my info. You should be proud of your input.

The thing about the "phantom driver" has been discussed several times on the forum. While I would believe that some proof is needed, therefore neccessitating some work by the police, situations like this where the OP is in the middle of nowhere and never claims anything to the contrary, I think it would be reasonable to assume he was the driver. In many of the cases of "phantom drivers" it seems they are usually BS and a feeble attempt to avoid prosecution. It seems the "passenger" never seems to know the name of the "driver". If one is to use this as a defense successfully, I suspect you better darn well be able to, at least, tell the police who it was.