• 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.

CA: If you're stopped in the carpool lane, but you r not alone?

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

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

So if you get pulled over and you actually have a passenger in your car, at that point when the officer sees them, can they, do they still ask for drivers license and registration?

My guess is yes, but I'm just wondering if you could get a ticket thrown out for say, not updating your Cali license from an out of state license?
 


Yes and yes.

That was a 3 part question and you missed the most important part!

So if I was to get a ticket for not updating my license from out of state, but there was not a valid reason to get pulled over, would I still get a ticket for that.

I'm guessing yes, but I'd like to hear from someone that knows?
 

Isis1

Senior Member
That was a 3 part question and you missed the most important part!

So if I was to get a ticket for not updating my license from out of state, but there was not a valid reason to get pulled over, would I still get a ticket for that.

I'm guessing yes, but I'd like to hear from someone that knows?
the answer is :the officer can still issue you a ticket for not updating your license from out of state. so the answer is STILL, yes.

it is up to the judge to throw a ticket out. if you updated the license prior to your hearing, the judge MIGHT throw it out. it just depends upon the judge and the judge's mood.
 
Last edited:

cyjeff

Senior Member
So I am guessing you got pulled over because the nice officer couldn't see your passenger.

Just because the stop turned out to be wrong doesn't mean it didn't have probable cause.
 
So I am guessing you got pulled over because the nice officer couldn't see your passenger.

Just because the stop turned out to be wrong doesn't mean it didn't have probable cause.
Actually no, no ticket yet, but my wife has not updated her DL and she always drives with our newborn in the back (newborn is why she hasn't updated it.)

I keep telling her she shouldn't drive in the carpool lane until she get's her DL, which better be soon.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
Actually no, no ticket yet, but my wife has not updated her DL and she always drives with our newborn in the back (newborn is why she hasn't updated it.)

I keep telling her she shouldn't drive in the carpool lane until she get's her DL, which better be soon.
If the officer cannot see the passenger, you cannot fault the officer for pulling the car over.

What does a newborn have to do with updating a driver's license?

Honestly, she shouldn't drive AT ALL until she gets her DL. When you say updated, are you saying she needs to change her address or get it reinstated?
 
If the officer cannot see the passenger, you cannot fault the officer for pulling the car over.

What does a newborn have to do with updating a driver's license?

Honestly, she shouldn't drive AT ALL until she gets her DL. When you say updated, are you saying she needs to change her address or get it reinstated?
She has a valid TX license but CA law says you have to get a CA license within 10 days of moving here. She has not gone in yet.
 

Isis1

Senior Member
She has a valid TX license but CA law says you have to get a CA license within 10 days of moving here. She has not gone in yet.
oh, you want to control her. i get it. it's a $10-20 fix it ticket. if she gets a ticket, that's her problem. it's her choice. it's her risk.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I'm curious as to why the easy opinion the officer can ask for license and registration in this situation. Sure, there was probable cause to do a reasonable investigation as to if the OP was driving without a passenger in an HOV lane. That reasonable investigation allows the temporary seizure (pulling over) of the vehicle to either issue the citation (If probable cause of committing a crime.) or continue the reasonable investigation (If only reasonable suspicion of committing the crime.).

Once the officer's reason for the reasonable investigation (including the seizure) has ended by seeing the car was actually legally being driven, the seizure should end. Since this was before the driver's license and registration was asked for, the officer cannot demand them. I think there is a clear argument for a dismissal of the ticket as the facts for the citation developed from an illegal search. As the court said in Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, once the reason for the detention has been satisfied, the detention may not be used as a "fishing expedition for unrelated criminal activity."

However, there could be an argument that the officer told the person they were free to go and merely *asked* for rather than demand the documents.

I think the OP would be silly to not contest the ticket.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
I was under the impression that this code would apply...

V C Section 12951 Possession of License

Possession of License

12951. (a) The licensee shall have the valid driver's license issued to him or her in his or her immediate possession at all times when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway.

Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed when the person charged produces in court a driver's license duly issued to that person and valid at the time of his or her arrest, except that upon a third or subsequent charge the court in its discretion may dismiss the charge. When a temporary, interim, or duplicate driver's license is produced in court, the charge shall not be dismissed unless the court has been furnished proof by the Department of Motor Vehicles that the temporary, interim, or duplicate license was issued prior to the arrest, that the driving privilege and license had not been suspended or revoked, and that the person was eligible for the temporary, interim, or duplicate license.

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code.
By the driver's act of driving upon the highway, that person then must have a driver's license on their person or in their possession.

It is not a fishing trip to ask for a document that must be present for an act the officer clearly observes as occurring.
 

The Occultist

Senior Member
So then comes the question: did the officer have the right to enforce the provisions of that code once his reason for detention was found to be invalid? or does CA allow the officer to "demand" proof of identity from anybody at any time?

Hey, I just realized: I haven't seen a post from Carl in a LONG time. Has something happened? or am I just unobservant and he's actually been posting this whole time?
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
So then comes the question: did the officer have the right to enforce the provisions of that code once his reason for detention was found to be invalid? or does CA allow the officer to "demand" proof of identity from anybody at any time?

Hey, I just realized: I haven't seen a post from Carl in a LONG time. Has something happened? or am I just unobservant and he's actually been posting this whole time?
I think this would fall under the same type of reasoning that allows officers to run any plate they see. If you are driving, you are stating that you possess the proper documentation to drive and have paid the proper taxes on the vehicle.

The difference is if a person is simply walking down the street. There is no documentation required to walk. Therefore, demanding someone's ID without cause is more difficult.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
I guess I'm missing the point. To:
I was under the impression that this code would apply...
I don't think anyone would disagree there are statutes which have been broken by the OP. The question has to do with the evidence used to prove the violation. Was it gathered reasonably or unreasonably?
By the driver's act of driving upon the highway, that person then must have a driver's license on their person or in their possession.

It is not a fishing trip to ask for a document that must be present for an act the officer clearly observes as occurring.
It *is* a "fishing trip" if the officer does not already have the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person with like training and experience to believe the OP committed a crime.

After the officer found out there was not a violation of the HOV lane, what fact or circumstance did the officer have to reasonably believe a crime was happening?

If you think that question is unimportant, then you believe the police can pull every driver they want over any time they want because they "must have a driver's license on their person or in their possession".

The 4th amendment should have the judge suppress evidence of the search obtained after the passenger was seen unless the police officer can articulate *further* probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the OP had been committing some crime. Just because the reason was not cited does not mean it does not exist.

Edit:
I think this would fall under the same type of reasoning that allows officers to run any plate they see. If you are driving, you are stating that you possess the proper documentation to drive and have paid the proper taxes on the vehicle.

The difference is if a person is simply walking down the street. There is no documentation required to walk. Therefore, demanding someone's ID without cause is more difficult.
It is not a search to see what a person sees while in a place he is legally. Here there was a search. Although, if the officer can make the case the OP knew he was free to leave and turned over the license and registration with consent, he might be able to change an illegal search into one with consent. (It would be very fact sensitive and I don't see it on our facts here.)
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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