Can officer fish for speeding suspects stopped at intersection?

[bbsucksass]

I live in California and I recently received a ticket for doing 61 in a 45 from a city cop. He was parked at a stop sign (near the sidewalk) on a sidestreet using lidar to target suspects on the main road (2 lanes in each direction). From what I know about california law, it seems that this officer was violating multiple articles of cvc 22500 in searching for suspects. Since no actual crime we being committed, I don't think he had authority to be parked at that stop sign. In other words, officers can violate speed laws in pursuit of suspects, but under normal circumstances (when no crime is being committed) they cannot (I'm sure there's a legal term to describe this distinction). So my question is, can I base a defense of this A22350 charge by claiming the officer's evidence is inadmissable (since it was obtained illegally)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[HappyHusband]

I live in California and I recently received a ticket for doing 61 in a 45 from a city cop. He was parked at a stop sign (near the sidewalk) on a sidestreet using lidar to target suspects on the main road (2 lanes in each direction). From what I know about california law, it seems that this officer was violating multiple articles of cvc 22500 in searching for suspects. Since no actual crime we being committed, I don't think he had authority to be parked at that stop sign. In other words, officers can violate speed laws in pursuit of suspects, but under normal circumstances (when no crime is being committed) they cannot (I'm sure there's a legal term to describe this distinction). So my question is, can I base a defense of this A22350 charge by claiming the officer's evidence is inadmissable (since it was obtained illegally)?

Thanks in advance.

In other words, officers can violate speed laws in pursuit of suspects, but under normal circumstances (when no crime is being committed) they cannot...

Was the officer exceeding the speed limit while he was parked?

 

[sukharev]

I would suggest to look up real defense strategies, such as lidar calibration, judicial notice, etc. Officers can park just about anywhere they see fit (according to exemptions given to emergency vehicles).

 

[CdwJava]

I live in California and I recently received a ticket for doing 61 in a 45 from a city cop. He was parked at a stop sign (near the sidewalk) on a sidestreet using lidar to target suspects on the main road (2 lanes in each direction). From what I know about california law, it seems that this officer was violating multiple articles of cvc 22500 in searching for suspects.

Specifically, how was he parked illegally?

Note that it would not matter a whole lot as he could park that way to catch speeders.

So my question is, can I base a defense of this A22350 charge by claiming the officer's evidence is inadmissable (since it was obtained illegally)?

Nope.

Well, you can TRY, but it will be gaveled down pretty quick. If that's all you got, then bring the checkbook. There are other options - lengthy, time consuming, and requiring some work on your part for a questionable chance at a win - but they stand SOME chance of success as compared to the unlawful parking argument.

- Carl

 

[Pugilist]

One more defense strategy is, "was it a speed trap." Our California law defines exactly what a speed trap is (probably not what you think it is) and says that if there was a speed trap, the ticket is no good, no matter how fast you were going.

Read about speed traps in the book Fight Your Ticket, by David Brown, available at your local library.

Pug

 

[bbsucksass]

Specifically, he was
a) obstructing disabled access ramp on his right
b) obstructing an entrance to an apartment complex
c) obstructing a crosswalk

That translates into cvc 22500.{b,e,l}. The point I'm making is that if I can get a ticket for stopping my vehicle at that location, why should this be legal for an officer? True, they are granted privileges to violate the law in special circumstances for the interests of the public good, however this does not entail fishing for suspects. It's similar to illegal searches in seizures. If an officer makes an search or seizure without probable cause,, the evidence obtained is generally inadmissable. Only in special circumstances (which we call probable cause) can such a search/seizure be made. Note that does not grant the officer a blank check to search whoever he wishes. In the same way, the officer does not have a blank check to violate the law to search for suspects. Only with good reason can he do so (this would be probable cause in the search/seizure analogy).

Do any of you understand my reasoning? If so, please tell me what's wrong with it and why it does not work with this case.

 

[CdwJava]

It's similar to illegal searches in seizures.

A parking violation is - by no stretch - a 4th amendment issue. You were on a public roadway in a public place - you and your moving vehicle had no expectation of privacy.

If an officer makes an search or seizure without probable cause,, the evidence obtained is generally inadmissable. Only in special circumstances (which we call probable cause) can such a search/seizure be made. Note that does not grant the officer a blank check to search whoever he wishes. In the same way, the officer does not have a blank check to violate the law to search for suspects. Only with good reason can he do so (this would be probable cause in the search/seizure analogy).

Okay ... kinda true, though you missed the concept of "exigency". But, it's all moot as your issue has nothing to do with a search.

Do any of you understand my reasoning? If so, please tell me what's wrong with it and why it does not work with this case.

Because you are not arguing a search.

If you wish to complain about the officer's parking violation, please contact his agency and request to make a complaint about his violation of the vehicle code. However, this violation is a seperate matter and not an issue that would prevent the issue of your speed from being addressed.

This concept has been tried in the courts and has not yet passed muster ... you aren't breaking new ground here.

Try a real defense - not this one. It WILL fail.

- Carl

 

[Pugilist]

Seldom do I agree with CDW - but I do this time. Trying to get the ticket dismissed because the cop was obstructing the sidewalk will not work, and will probably backfire as it will irritate the judge, a lot.

CDW said "try a real defense." I have pointed you towards the speed trap defense, very real.

Pug

 

[bbsucksass]

Thanks for your response Carl. I understand what you're saying. I guess I was hoping that there exists a general legal principle that the government cannot violate the law to find potential law breakers. The 4th amendment explicitly states an instance of this principle (in the context of searches/seizures), I would like to think that this common sense principle was embodied somewhere in the constitution or state constitution or at least made common law.
But it sounds like that's not the case. Thanks for your advice.