• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

In California, Is a traffic ticket the same as a police report

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

GoldySJSU

Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA


I have 2 citations that were falsely filed by two officers. I think that these would be equivelant to filing a false police reports if it is determined that they were in fact false.

But as a person who does not know much (if anything) regarding CA laws, I need advice.

These were ID'ed as traffic infractions, but I learned from a CHP officer that the violations in question cannot be. Thus the documents were false reports.

Thanks for any info. :confused:What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
I have 2 citations that were falsely filed by two officers. I think that these would be equivelant to filing a false police reports if it is determined that they were in fact false.
Since a citation is a signed promise to appear after probable cause exists to "arrest" the person for a public offense, it must be based upon articulable probable cause. While completing the citation might be considered a crime if completed knowing full well the allegations were false, the more important offense would be making an arrest knowing there was no probable cause. This is rarely ever the case.

Perhaps you would care to explain what makes you think that two officers cited you for offenses they just made up out of whole cloth? Keep in mind that being wrong, or having a case dismissed is not the same as saying that the officers committed a knowing and intentional act.

These were ID'ed as traffic infractions, but I learned from a CHP officer that the violations in question cannot be. Thus the documents were false reports.
What were the violation code sections?

Understand that most misdemeanors can be filed as infractions and can even be cited as such. And understand that a clerical error is NOT a "false" report or any sort of malfeasance - it is a mistake.

However, I am sure that if you point out the error to the agency or the court they might be willing to charge you with an offense that includes jail time (a misdemeanor) as opposed to an offense that can result only in a fine (an infraction).
 

GoldySJSU

Member
Good Question:

The CVC is organized so that “Traffic Infractions” are bundled into the CVC Divisions 11: Rules of the Road and 11.5: Sentencing for Driving While Under the Influence.

However my “infraction” CVC 25950, was in Division 12 equipment of vehicles. So when he wrote on my citation that I had performed a “Traffic Infraction”

I received a citation written by the officers that falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11 Rules of the Road.

In fact I was given a similar CVC equipment violation for violating CVC 26708(a) which was valid, and I corrected the problem. The ticket was issued by an officer of the CHP Ticket. The officer made it clear that the ticket was NOT a TRAFFIC INFRACTION and made no notation at the top of the citation where it declares a traffic, non-traffic, or misdemeanor. This is proof that my analysis is sound and correct. The CVC 25950(a) issue is NOT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION.:(

Under what legal reasoning would the court charge me with an additional criminal act? you stated:

" However, I am sure that if you point out the error to the agency or the court they might be willing to charge you with an offense that includes jail time (a misdemeanor) as opposed to an offense that can result only in a fine (an infraction). ":eek:

What offense can one be charged with in this situation? What criminal or other offending act was violated? This is acary idea that a court can make up it's own means of penalizing a person when they haven't done anything wrong.:eek:
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The CVC is organized so that “Traffic Infractions” are bundled into the CVC Divisions 11: Rules of the Road and 11.5: Sentencing for Driving While Under the Influence.

However my “infraction” CVC 25950, was in Division 12 equipment of vehicles. So when he wrote on my citation that I had performed a “Traffic Infraction”
Are you still going on about the nozzle lights? Didn't you prevail at trial?

I received a citation written by the officers that falsely states that I committed a traffic infraction. There was no violation that was defined in Division 11 Rules of the Road of the 2009 California Vehicle Code. My speed as documented on his ticket was legal; there was no mention of any driving practice as defined by CVC Division 11 Rules of the Road.
<sigh> ... Read CVC 40000.1:

40000.1. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it is
unlawful and constitutes an infraction for any person to violate, or
fail to comply with any provision of this code, or any local
ordinance adopted pursuant to this code.​
Since 29590 fails to specify any other level of offense, it is - by default - an infraction.

You need to learn to read the Vehicle Code better - you have it all skewed.

In fact I was given a similar CVC equipment violation for violating CVC 26708(a) which was valid, and I corrected the problem. The ticket was issued by an officer of the CHP Ticket. The officer made it clear that the ticket was NOT a TRAFFIC INFRACTION and made no notation at the top of the citation where it declares a traffic, non-traffic, or misdemeanor. This is proof that my analysis is sound and correct. The CVC 25950(a) issue is NOT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION.
Because a CHP officer failed to check the box at the top of the citation indicating the level of the offense proves nothing except that the officer forgot to check the box.

In fact, Appendix B-21 of the California Vehicle Code published by the California Department of motor Vehicles lists 25950(a), (b) and (c) as infractions. This official publication is far more compelling than the "oops" of a single CHP officer.

(see this link for a web version of the printed appendix: http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd12.htm

Under what legal reasoning would the court charge me with an additional criminal act? you stated:

" However, I am sure that if you point out the error to the agency or the court they might be willing to charge you with an offense that includes jail time (a misdemeanor) as opposed to an offense that can result only in a fine (an infraction). "
I assumed that if the offense was not an infraction, it was a misdemeanor and you were looking to get out of something for that "error." I did not think for a moment that you might be trying to argue that the act or omission was not a public offense at all.

You were accused of CVC 25950(a) - it is an infraction. If this is a new offense, deal with it at court based upon the facts. If you are still seeking some sort of payback over the old citation(s), perhaps it is time to move on.
 

GoldySJSU

Member
Thanks for information, but my question still isn't answered

Even if CVC 25950 is an infraction, it cannot be a traffic one. THe form must be filled so it indicates a "non-traffic" infraction.

Equipment infractions are not violations of Divisions 11: Rules of the Road and 11.5: Sentencing for Driving While Under the Influence.

So it still is a false document.

The CHP officer by the way explained why he did not note any of the top boxes when he wrote the ticket. Again I will not argue it may be considered an infraction.

The officers were highly experienced and trained, I am sure that they would clearly understand that a traffic infraction has much more serious consequences: i.e. shows up on your auto insurance. But if it is a non-traffic infraction, than they are again filing a false report. It does not matter if it is a mistake, a law enforcement officer knows that a citation is a legal document and must be written accurately, it clearly must be grounds for the officers to be subject to investigation regarding their practice of law enforcement.

I still need clarification "is a falsely written citation the same as a police report like if a criminal charge that is alleged with false evidentiary documentation?"
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Even if CVC 25950 is an infraction, it cannot be a traffic one. THe form must be filled so it indicates a "non-traffic" infraction.
Not true.

The CHP officer by the way explained why he did not note any of the top boxes when he wrote the ticket. Again I will not argue it may be considered an infraction.
He can choose not to check the box at the top of the cite if he likes. if his supervisors do not care, and the local court does not complain (many do as it confuses the routing for the citation), then he can do as he pleases.

The officers were highly experienced and trained, I am sure that they would clearly understand that a traffic infraction has much more serious consequences: i.e. shows up on your auto insurance.
25950(a) shows up on your DMV record. If your insurance company pulls the defendant's DMV record, they will find that conviction. But, as an equipment violation, it does not involve a point against the driving record.

But if it is a non-traffic infraction, than they are again filing a false report.
Again, not true. You are free to operate under that assumption if you wish. If you do, I suspect you will continue to find the system deaf to your claims.

It does not matter if it is a mistake, a law enforcement officer knows that a citation is a legal document and must be written accurately, it clearly must be grounds for the officers to be subject to investigation regarding their practice of law enforcement.
And when you complained to the officers' agency, you were told, what?

I still need clarification "is a falsely written citation the same as a police report like if a criminal charge that is alleged with false evidentiary documentation?"
Knowingly and intentionally falsifying an official document can be a criminal offense as could making a false arrest (which citing and releasing someone for which there existed no probable cause would be). But, your assumptions here are wrong.

If you feel so strongly, then hire an attorney and turn the entire legal system in CA upside down. Good luck with that.
 

GoldySJSU

Member
very interesting

You stated this:

Knowingly and intentionally falsifying an official document can be a criminal offense as could making a false arrest (which citing and releasing someone for which there existed no probable cause would be). But, your assumptions here are wrong.

I haave been pulled over 6 times resulting in no citation, wouldn't that be an example of no probable cause. And wouldn't this be a criminal offense on the officer who did not cite me?:eek:
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I haave been pulled over 6 times resulting in no citation, wouldn't that be an example of no probable cause.
Nope. It is common for police officers to not cite an equipment violation so as to preserve the probable cause for some future officer. Cops don't really get excited writing a bunch of fixits. They'd rather arrest someone. If someone seems like they may be a problem in the future, they might just let things lie so as to have the opportunity to visit again someday.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
You stated this:

Knowingly and intentionally falsifying an official document can be a criminal offense as could making a false arrest (which citing and releasing someone for which there existed no probable cause would be). But, your assumptions here are wrong.

I haave been pulled over 6 times resulting in no citation, wouldn't that be an example of no probable cause. And wouldn't this be a criminal offense on the officer who did not cite me?:eek:
Ditto what Tranquility said.

We don't always have to write any more than we have to arrest someone even if we have probable cause. Few crimes REQUIRE an arrest (only one comes to mind) and none of these are traffic matters.
 

Antigone*

Senior Member
We really need a stop feeing the trolls emoticon around here:p

I'm willing to bet a bottle of the finest wine from the B&G that this thread will go at least 5 pages. Any takers???
 
Nope. It is common for police officers to not cite an equipment violation so as to preserve the probable cause for some future officer. Cops don't really get excited writing a bunch of fixits. They'd rather eat donuts, lotsa lotsa donuts. If someone seems like they may be a problem in the future, they might just let things lie so as to have the opportunity to visit again someday.
I agree .. cops are very busy people
 

GoldySJSU

Member
Still confused but learning

Ditto what Tranquility said.

We don't always have to write any more than we have to arrest someone even if we have probable cause. Few crimes REQUIRE an arrest (only one comes to mind) and none of these are traffic matters.
Just to let you know, I was kidding about the idea that an officer MUST write a citation when a car gets pulled over.:D

And just for thinking, I believe it would be domestic violence that requires an arrest I believe. The laws are "zero-tolerance" and if the victim gets more seriously hurt, they may have a reckless endangerment claim on the officer.:mad:
 

GoldySJSU

Member
Very Confusing

It all appears to me that there is no real standards regarding how officers deal with situations where there is doubt that an equipment violation exists.

My example shows that 25% of officers tend to presume guilt where they do not have anything other than an existance of a blue color is on a vehicle.

And when discussing with an officer, in a VERY respectful manner, providing the information regarding the situation 75% of officers simply understand that presuming guilt is innapropriate.

Could this be a sign that many officers in CA might be meeting out frustration they have on people who are not harming anyone, and may not be the source of it?

I have also noticed how many cars have illegal tint on the front drivers, front passengers, and windshield quite a bit lately.

As a concerned citizen, I understand why this should not be allowed, officers cannot tell if they are in danger with windows tinted like that.

I made an honest mistake regarding this, after being educated by an officer I immediatly corrected the problem. But I can imagine how scared an officer could be under those conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top