Probable Cause?? What do I do now? (Sorry for the length, but it's detailed!)

[feelinghelpless]

California - Thursday, 1/4/07 12:30 pm
My wife and I were on our way to work, and, as usual, running a little behind. To avoid traffic, we turned off of the main, paved roads and opted for the less travelled dirt roads as a bit of a "short-cut". I was driving, my wife passenger, and our 100+ pound Irish Wolfhound/Great Dane mix dog was riding in the back. As we approached pavement near the end of our "shortcut", a police cruiser entered the dirt road from in front of us. When we passed each other, I made eye contact with the officer(he was wearing mirrored sunglasses, his view was directly towards me) so I gave an obligatory "head nod" and continued on. We were about 100 feet from pavement at that time. I stopped at the stop sign, then proceeded. As I sped up to the posted speed limit, I glanced in my rear view mirror and saw that the police cruiser was speeding towards me. He "coasted" through the stop sign, and raced up behind me. It wasn't more than a few seconds later that he turned on his flashing lights and "pulled me over".
I pulled to the side of the road, turned off the ignition, set the keys on the dashboard and placed both of my hands on the steering wheel (advice from my father - an R.C.M.P. officer for 22 years). As the officer got out of his car, my dog began barking - I shouted at her to stop, and informed the officer that she would not bite and that she was chained in. He approached my already open window and asked "do you know why I pulled you over?" I had no idea why and responded accordingly. After a brief pause he asked if we had noticed "that abandoned car back there" as he motioned towards the rear of us, pen in hand. Both my wife and I turned to look in the direction he was pointing, and, still seeing nothing (except another police cruiser pull in behind his) we both responded that we hadn't seen anything of the sort. He then told us that "a stolen vehicle has just been dumped in the area which we were driving", he paused, then looked over the rims of his sunglasses and questioned "you don't know anything about that, do you?" My wife and I re-iterated that we hadn't even seen an abandoned car, and knew nothing about the stolen vehicle.
It was about this time that the second cruiser pulled out and drove off. The officer stood there for a some time(seemed like minutes, but I'm certain it was seconds) as he switched his "over the rim" gaze at me,thenmy wife, and back at me. "So, we won't find your shoe prints, fingerprints, tire tracks, or anything else like that around the car?" he asked. I responded firmly, " no sir, as we said, we didn't see a car". He nodded his head, and looked around, then turned back to me "so what were you doing on the dirt roads then?" I said we were running late for work, and to avoid traffic we cut across on the dirt roads. "What roads did you take?" I paused, trying to recall the names of the(many improperly marked) streets- "I can't say that I know all the street names I took, but, I started out on El Mirage Road and took it until it turns into . . . Koala? Is it Koala hon?" my wife nodded yes. "I took that 'til it dead ends at . . .I'm not certain of the street name, but it's where koala ends . ." He stopped me and said "O.K., I'll just get your I.D.'s and then you can go." My wife told him that she didn't have hers, and I reached for my wallet. I handed him my Permanent Resident Card, issued by the Department of Justice. It has my picture, thumbprint, an ID number, birthdate, etc.. "Where is your driver's licence?" he asked, his voice turning "harsh". I told him that I didn't have it. "Where is it?" he asked again. "it has been suspended" I told him calmly. "Do you have one?" he asked, changing his view towards my wife. "No sir, my license was suspended for child support" she stated (which has been paid in full, they decided not to give it back until they know she will make future payments!?!) He then asked what mine was suspended for. "Not providing proof of registration on a fix-it ticket, on a car that was [b]stolen[b]" He stared at me through his mirrored glasses and said "You wait here while I decide what we're gonna do with the truck."
He walked back to his cruiser as an SUV pulled in behind him, he proceeded to the back of his cruiser where he spent 10 to 15 min. in a conversation with the driver, who was apparently an undercover, or task-force officer. After he finished chatting, he got into his cruiser. The SUV drove off, and another cruiser pulled behind his with lights flashing. The officer, a large man (about 6'4" and easily 230 lbs) walked to the passenger side of my truck, and stopped 10 feet to the rear of it. He stared intently at the truck and placed his right hand on what looked like the grip of a gun. I don't think he moved, except to "bark" at my cousin, who we had contacted to come pick up my dog. Another 10 - 15 min.passed,and a tow truck pulled up across the street. I new then it was his intent to impound the truck. He walked over and talked with the truck driver for a few mins. He then approached my door, opened it, and told me to step out of the truck and wait at the rear. I asked if I could ask him a ?? without him mistruing it as a challenge to his authority. He said yes. "Why is it, that you have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution above all other laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court has many times stated that the Constution gives us the right to drive, and it's not a priviledge, yet you are converting my rights into a crime? Also, isn't impounding my truck a violation of my right to due process?" He stated:"every one of those cases has been overturned. . now step to the back of your truck." I did as he said. I stopped at the back of my truck, he looked at me -"move back further" he commanded. I took a few more steps backwards as he watched. "Just go stand at the front of my car" he shouted. I complied. I watched as he leaned into the truck and spoke with my wife. After a couple of minutes, he popped his head back out and walked back towards me. He continued past and went to the passenger side of his cruiser where he set his clipboard on the hood. "Sign this, it is not an admission of guilt, but a promise to appear at the time and place stated on the ticket" he handed me a pen. I signed the ticket, he gave me a copy, and told me to collect my personal items from the truck. I looked at the ticket and it was for "susp cdl" AND "no front plate". I asked if I could move my dog to my cousins truck. He said "yes. . .as long as it is leashed". I moved my dog and some personal items, paperwork, tools etc.. My wife asked me if she couild get out of the truck,and asked me to not leave her alone. I told her that I didn't know what was going on regarding her "freedom","hell, I don't even know if I'm allowed to leave right now" I said. I moved more to my cousins truck (parked over 1/2 a block away.) I told the officer that I had a knife in my pocket and asked if I could use it to cut my dogs leash - it's easier than untying the knot. He said yes. I then asked if my wife was free to go-he said she was. She helped me carry "stuff" from our truck. We got most all we needed out and my wife asked me what was happening with the truck. "I still don't know" I said, and walked back to the officer. I stopped about 6 - 8 feet from him and asked what was happening with the truck. "It's gone for 30 days" he stated, "you can get a card from the driver. Let's see your shoe print" I lifted my foot while waiting for the driver to become available. After a few minutes the officer said "you're free to go." "Thank you,but I still need a card." I waited a minute or so, then walked around the truck and got a card."And what was your name?" I asked. "I don't need to give you that" he snapped. I glanced at his shirt and said "thank you, Gus, I guess you don't. With that I turned to walk to my cousin's truck. "Do you want this?" I heard the officer ask? I turned as he lifted my wife's back-pack from the truck and set it on the ground. "I guess I do now" I said. "so much for Constitutional protections" I mumbled, as I reached for the back-pack. I turned to walk away. "wait a minute! how much have you had to drink today?" I looked at him and said " Don't even go there, I haven't had a drink in about 5 years! Now am I free to go?" He looked back with a smile and said "Yes, absolutely" I heard him mutter something about how it must have been something in the air that his nose picked up. I didn't even turn to look, I helped my wife into our cousins truck, then climbed in myself, and we drove away.The time? 1:38 pm - over an hour for a misdemeanor traffic ticket.

I know that State Law requires a license to drive (even though that is only for commerce it is "understood" that all need a license - I respectfully disagree) that aside, was this "stop" not bogus from the start? does he not have to identify himself? Was there "probable cause" for the stop? If not, is everything else "fruit of the forbidden tree?" How can I, or, can I get my truck back before 30 days? I live over 45 miles from work, in a rural community (no bus or public transportation available). I have no other means of transportation - I have not even be able to get home yet - we are staying at my in-laws as we have no other alternative!
Oh yeah, not to "bleed on" anybody, but we're broke - we fell victim to a predatory lender about a year ago and lost everything - apparently the law couldn't help us with that either - even our credit was destroyed! Help!!! I feel helpless! - California

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by feelinghelpless

I asked if I could ask him a ?? without him mistruing it as a challenge to his authority. He said yes. "Why is it, that you have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution above all other laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court has many times stated that the Constution gives us the right to drive, and it's not a priviledge, yet you are converting my rights into a crime? Also, isn't impounding my truck a violation of my right to due process?"

Gadzooks! Someone who has not read the actual decisions, and certainly not ones in the last few decades!

The states MAY regulate the driving privilege and they MAY impound your vehicle under certain circumstances (such as driving without a license). Both are well settled in case law.

asked what was happening with the truck. "It's gone for 30 days"

Yep - CVC 14602.6. However, if you get your license reinstated, you can get the car out ... though you'll still need to mount that front plate.

The time? 1:38 pm - over an hour for a misdemeanor traffic ticket.

Fortunately for you, the law does not yet allow law enforcement or the court to request compensation from you for their time in these situations.

I know that State Law requires a license to drive (even though that is only for commerce it is "understood" that all need a license - I respectfully disagree)

The state and federal courts disagree with you as well.

that aside, was this "stop" not bogus from the start? does he not have to identify himself?

Why was it bogus? You are on dirt roads (perhaps private roads), in the area of a stolen vehicle, and you have no front license plate (this is sufficient for the stop by itself). The stop was lawful.

As for identifying himself ... uh ... didn't you write that you knew he was a cop? Was he in uniform and in a marked vehicle? You said he was in a police cruiser. So, why do you think he has to walk up and start into a speech as to who he is?

Was there "probable cause" for the stop?

Yes. See above. The front plate was sufficient for the stop, and the officer in the patrol car could have seen that when you were driving toward each other. This avenue is closed to your defense.

How can I, or, can I get my truck back before 30 days?

If your license had been suspended for non-payment of child support, then if you can get your license re-instated, the agency will have to drop the hold.

I live over 45 miles from work, in a rural community (no bus or public transportation available). I have no other means of transportation - I have not even be able to get home yet - we are staying at my in-laws as we have no other alternative!

An excellent argument as to why you should keep your license in good standing.

Sorry, but your pretty much out of luck here. You can either hire an attorney to TRY and mitigate the damage, or, you can plead guilty, pay your fines, and work toward making good on your financial obligation to your children and getting your license reinstated.

- Carl

[tranquility]

Sorry, everything sounds fine. We don't know his reasoning for the stolen vehicle suspicion and if those facts would rise to the level of a reasonable suspicion which would give him a reason to pull you over. However we don't need to go there as he came from the front and noted you did not have a front license plate on your car. This gave him probable cause to stop you--even if it was a pretext to do an investigation for something else. Once stopped, he had the right to check for your license, registration and insurance. Since you were driving on a suspended license, your car was subject to seizure and you were subject to non-custodial arrest because you were able to supply him with identification he accepted. If you didn't have acceptable identification, you may have been arrested and taken to jail.

By-the-by, why do you need your car if your license is still suspended?

[garrula lingua]

From the facts, the stop and the citation were righteous.

You can try to fight based on the time length of the stop, but I'm sure you'd lose - the cop gave you time to empty your belongings & arrange other transport & move your dog. The cop was nice to you.

The cop could have completely searched the items in the truck, and he could have arrested you, instead of citing you.

That said, you seem to think the cop has to kiss your behind during a stop.
S/he doesn't have to - they just have to do their job.

Maybe you should consider moving back to your home country, as everything here is so terrible for you.

[feelinghelpless]

First, the missing front plate was not discovered until after the stop - or can PC discovered after the stop be used as PC?
Second, I have read the decisions from the past few decades, and the past century as well . . . unlike you, I choose to look at the totality of these decisions and stand by my belief that I do have an inalieble right to the usage of public roads (which the dirt road I was on is - public, not private) yes, I read the decisions rather than relying on some state issued interpretation which, of course, keeps the enforcers (police) continued aid in keeping the illegal cash cow full of it's paper currency. I could dispute this difference of opinion with you until we are both blue in the face, but, due to the limited amount of space per post, and the unlikely occurance of either one of our opinions changing, I don't feel that would be a positive use of my time. I do, however, want you to know that the most recent court ruling I have found in my favor is from 2003 - Can you point me to anything more recent than that? (for or against, I really am interested in the truth)
In reality, it really shouldn't make a difference in this case as, all in all, I don't believe that there was PC for the initial stop - I watched at least a half dozen vehicles pull out of the same intersection as I did within the first 10 - 15 minutes of my being stopped, and they drove right on by without anyone giving them a second look - If my proximity to the stolen car (which I have not seen so do not know if it even exists) was PC for a stop, should not those others have been stopped as well? On what grounds could the officer have reasonably believed that I was engaged in, or about to be engaged in criminal activity? c'mon now, get real!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by feelinghelpless

First, the missing front plate was not discovered until after the stop - or can PC discovered after the stop be used as PC?

So ... the officer did not notice it until after he stopped you? The two of you approached each other and he missed the fact that you had no front plate? He told you this?

I choose to look at the totality of these decisions and stand by my belief that I do have an inalieble right to the usage of public roads (which the dirt road I was on is - public, not private) yes, I read the decisions

Then please show where there is some controlling case law that the state and federal courts have overlooked that says you do not need a license to drive. I am sure it will come as a surprise to the USSC and to every court in the country.

On what grounds could the officer have reasonably believed that I was engaged in, or about to be engaged in criminal activity? c'mon now, get real!

I dunno. I guess you'll have to bring that up in court and let him explain it. But, since you didn't have a front plate, there's his PC right there.

Sorry.

Now, go out there and clear up your debt so that you can get that license and drive lawfully like the rest of us.

- Carl

[justalayman]

OP has taken the time to write a very detailed description of the entire ordeal including the "over the rim of his sunglasses" interogation method. (I think the Geneva convention outlawed this method but not sure).

In his entire extremely (to the point of being excruciatingly boring) detailed description, OP never said the officer walked to the fromt of the OP's car before giving the ticket for no front plate. HHmmmm. You think he actually might have seen this as you passed each other going inopposite directions? Naw, the police aren't that good are they?


What we have here is a person who was obviously breaking the law and got caught. Now he wants to make the old "my rights were violated" arguement. You need to understand the difference between "rights" and "privilages". Post some of those cases where driving was determined to be "an inalienable right".



BTW: what ever happend with the failure to respond to the ticket for failure to provide registration on a stolen car?? So you were previously driving a stolen car and all you got was the ticket? Pretty good deal if you ask me.

[CdwJava]

Rather than posting the litany of bizarre lower court decisions over the years, I would prefer that if he posts ANY cites that he cites CONTROLLING and PUBLISHED opinions. I can go on line right now and find a number of fringe web sites that will quote some bizarre rulings and even out-of-context quotes from rulings unrelated to the driving privelege, but none of them are controlling. I know there are no such controlling case cites for my state ... who knows about others. Though I doubt it.

- Carl

[feelinghelpless]

I apologize for the boring spiel, but I wanted to inject as much detail as possible - I can always refer to this post in the future should I need to for any reason, and it was all still pretty fresh in my mind at the time. I originally had made note of the officer walking to the front of my vehicle, but the 10000 character limit had me revising to "cut down" this lengthy, boring statement. I guess I inadvertantly (sp?) removed a rather crucial portion of my statement of events. My bad! lol As far as the "got caught breaking the law and now wants the old my rights were violated . . . " thing - not this cowboy! Yes, I want to "beat the ticket", but I only want to beat it if I can do so honestly, and legally. Unfortunately, I know alot of law enforcement personel who don't hold the same standards for issuing "code violations". I'm certain that many times this is due to being unaware of the the full wording of the code or some oversight like that - there are, after all (and please don't quote me on this, I remember reading it, but can't find it now and I may be off by a zero one way or the other ) 650,000 codes, each with thier a's, b's,c's and the like, and then there are perhaps a hundred plus different rulings on each (depending on various circumstances, etc.) . . . but then, "ignorance is no excuse." Next, duh! Ya, like he totally came up to the car and said, like I didn't notice any missing front plate, so if I write you a ticket for it later, just disregard that as my PC" like for sure he would say that! lol For a cop supervisor, you let an obvious one by . . . let me re-iterate - " . . . When we passed each other, I made eye contact with the officer(he was wearing mirrored sunglasses, his view was directly towards me) . . . " Ya, DIRECTLY towards me . . . had the ol' mirrored specs trained on me for quite awhile - long enough for me to say that he wasn't checking for a front plate . . . he still hasn't noticed the cracked windshield! lmao Now, provide registration on a stolen car???? I think you must have fallen asleep at the wheel or something - are you confusing my excruciatingly boring account with another?? please, in the future, know what you are commenting on, before commenting. (just razzin' ya )
Finally, and just a few examples ( I wouldn't want to give up my whole defense )

. . . Robertson vs. Department of Public Works,16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987, II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135,Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.; Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777, Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75,Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516,Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491,Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489,Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946,Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163,Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579,State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 107;Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516,Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82,State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864,State vs. City of Spokane, supra,Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781,Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784,See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].),16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987,Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313,Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;Stephenson vs. Binford, supra. . . . and about as many more, right up until '03 . . . now, you said you had examples against? By all means, offer them - I only seek the truth. Oh, BTW, what do you consider "controlling" case law to be? Do you mean positive case law? Either way, you haven't quoted, nor "pointed me in the direction" of either. Perhaps you just want me to accept the false statutes which the state tries to cram down my throat as law . . . as law. Sorry, apparently I'm not as gullable as you and your cohorts. FYI, In the United States of America, regarding questions as to the constitutional legalities of various statutes, negatively injected by state governments, the controlling law is federal law. Since the United States is what is known as a common law jurisdiction, case law from the state itself is not in itself law(when challenged), until it is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Only then can it be cited as controlling law. Sooooo, when did the USSC rule that driving is a privilege, and not a right? Just wondering how many times they have overturned thier own rulings on this matter?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by feelinghelpless

Yes, I want to "beat the ticket", but I only want to beat it if I can do so honestly, and legally.

So ... what is your legal defense for not having a front license plate or a driver's license?

When we passed each other, I made eye contact with the officer(he was wearing mirrored sunglasses, his view was directly towards me) . . . " Ya, DIRECTLY towards me

Yeah, you're right ... I can ONLY see what is directly in front of me ... I cannot POSSIBLY see your lack of a front plate while I'm watching your vehicle approach and I'm looking at you.

The fact he was wearing mirrored glasses makes it impossible to know WHERE he was looking, not to mention the field of vision would certainly cover the entire front of your vehicle and it would take less than 3/4 of a second to realize a license plate was missing.

lmao Now, provide registration on a stolen car????

I don't believe that *I* commented on the stolen car registration thing.

Finally, and just a few examples ( I wouldn't want to give up my whole defense )

What ... are those for the license issue? I recognize more than a few of those, and they do not support what you think they might. You need to read actual law reviews rather than counting on the whacko fringe websites that cite these as justification for no having a license. Don't expect to get any traction at all in a CA court on this matter.

Oh, BTW, what do you consider "controlling" case law to be? Do you mean positive case law?

Nah - just properly shepherded and controlling. In other words, case law that is currently the final word on the matter. Simply finding *A* decision that addresses your issue or a related issue, does no make it controlling on any other court. An unpublished, overturned, or superseded decision is not controlling. Those few I recognized from your list are no longer controlling - most never were.

Perhaps you just want me to accept the false statutes which the state tries to cram down my throat as law . . . as law.

When you go to court, be sure to argue the fringe on the flag and Admiralty Court bit, too ... they'll get a hoot out of it.

Hey, if you got the dough, I am sure you will find an attorney that will spend time making these arguments ... right up until the time they lock you up.


- Carl

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

...
Gadzooks!
....

Did you know that is a contraction for God's hooks, which is medieval curse?!



gadzooks Look up gadzooks at Dictionary.com
[url]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gadzooks[/url]

1694, from some exclamation, possibly God's hooks (nails of the cross) or even God's hocks. The use of Gad for God (cf. egad) is first attested 1598. Among other similar phraseological combinations (all from 17c.) were gadsbobs, gadslid, and gads******s.

[justalayman]

He then asked what mine was suspended for. "Not providing proof of registration on a fix-it ticket, on a car that was [b]stolen[b]"

That is where the comment on the stolen car came from. It is in your original post. You are the one that stated the fact it was stolen. I was just mentioning it since you apparently have a problem following the laws. I felt it said a lot about you.

Now you say he did walk to the front of your car. Guess what he was doing? Looking to see if his original observation was correct. Guess what? It was.

Now since he was looking directly at you, well actually his glasses were directed towards you, do you have any idea how far you can see from side to side without moving your head? Since you could not see his eyes, you have no idea what he was actually looking at at any given time.
---------------------

Unless you can prove (which you can't) that the officer could not have possibly seen that you did not have a front plate, you cannot prove lack of probable cause. The rest is a gimme. The judge is going to say "gimme your money".

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Did you know that is a contraction for God's hooks, which is medieval curse?!

Actually, yes.

I was a geek in my early years and spent a lot of time living medieval and Renaissance history ... but, the girls ... oh my, the girls!

- Carl

[feelinghelpless]

fix it ticket on my car which was stolen from me (not by me) shortly after I recieved said fix it ticket. I don't steal cars - never have, can't imagine that I ever will! Now, some of this "positive", or "controlling" law of which you speak? Thanks for your opinions, but what are the opinions of the courts (higher) that you speak of? All that I have found support my case. All dissenting are from lower courts. (I wonder where they get their funding from) Aside from that, if you don't think it's all aboput money, you're blind . . . or stupid. As it turns out, I can get the truck out early - PAY a fee to the "impounding agency"(police)-imagine, they only accept CA$H(I wonder who's pocket that fee makes it's way into?? and then pay the towing fees and storage fees charged by the towing company. Hmmmm funny thing though, statute says they must charge the same rate as any other towing and storage, but thier fee's for police impounded vehicles are almost 50% higher - apparently due to contract with police dept. - but it's about safety and responsibility, not $$$$$ - yeah right! lmao

[justalayman]

so why didn't you fix the ticket then?