Entrapment

[ekung]

While driving this morning on the streets of Los Angeles, Ca. I was ticketed for not stopping while a pedestrian was on the cross walk. At first I felt confused as I was fully aware of the "pedestrian's" location and it seemed like the individual made a sudden and abrupt step onto the crosswalk, just prior to my passing. Upon further investigation, I came to find that the "pedestrian" was in fact an undercover officer and the intersection I had gotten ticketed at, was a trap with 5-6 officers on motorcycles awaiting for "violators".

Upon further investigation, I noticed that the undercover officer would continuously make abrupt entrances onto the the crosswalk (an average of about 14 trips across the mid to heavy traffic street). Having spoken to one of the officers, I found out that this was a devised plan in "catching violators".

This all seemed odd to me because at this hour (approx. 8:30 am), there were no other pedestrians crossing this intersection besides the undercover officer. Several times I witnessed cars having to make sudden stops in order to yield to the guy, so it appeared that the trap was really more of a nuisance at best (and a danger to commuter safety in my opinion).

With all that said, do you think this can be considered entrapment or a violation of any civic standards/rights?

 

[HomeGuru]

While driving this morning on the streets of Los Angeles, Ca. I was ticketed for not stopping while a pedestrian was on the cross walk. At first I felt confused as I was fully aware of the "pedestrian's" location and it seemed like the individual made a sudden and abrupt step onto the crosswalk, just prior to my passing. Upon further investigation, I came to find that the "pedestrian" was in fact an undercover officer and the intersection I had gotten ticketed at, was a trap with 5-6 officers on motorcycles awaiting for "violators".

Upon further investigation, I noticed that the undercover officer would continuously make abrupt entrances onto the the crosswalk (an average of about 14 trips across the mid to heavy traffic street). Having spoken to one of the officers, I found out that this was a devised plan in "catching violators".

This all seemed odd to me because at this hour (approx. 8:30 am), there were no other pedestrians crossing this intersection besides the undercover officer. Several times I witnessed cars having to make sudden stops in order to yield to the guy, so it appeared that the trap was really more of a nuisance at best (and a danger to commuter safety in my opinion).

With all that said, do you think this can be considered entrapment or a violation of any civic standards/rights?

**A: yes, depending upon the exact circumstances.

 

[CdwJava]

While driving this morning on the streets of Los Angeles, Ca. I was ticketed for not stopping while a pedestrian was on the cross walk. At first I felt confused as I was fully aware of the "pedestrian's" location and it seemed like the individual made a sudden and abrupt step onto the crosswalk, just prior to my passing.

And you can make that claim in your defense at trial should you choose to do go to trial.

This all seemed odd to me because at this hour (approx. 8:30 am), there were no other pedestrians crossing this intersection besides the undercover officer.

That doesn't make it any less valid to enforce the law at that time of day.

Several times I witnessed cars having to make sudden stops in order to yield to the guy, so it appeared that the trap was really more of a nuisance at best (and a danger to commuter safety in my opinion).

Perhaps the commuters should travel more carefully and pay closer attention to the sidewalks around them and to other traffic - even foot traffic. Maybe it woke a few people up.

With all that said, do you think this can be considered entrapment or a violation of any civic standards/rights?

Entrapment? No. And I'm not sure what a "civic standard" or a "civic right" right be. If you meant "civil right", no.

- Carl

 

[ekung]

I do have numerous pictures of the guy crossing while cars were quickly approaching and my passenger is willing to write a statement declaring the abruptness of the pedestrian's entrance into the crosswalk.

Is there anything else I should gather or furnish to better my defense in court?

Thanks for all your help, guys

 

[CdwJava]

I do have numerous pictures of the guy crossing while cars were quickly approaching and my passenger is willing to write a statement declaring the abruptness of the pedestrian's entrance into the crosswalk.

Then bring your witness with you to court and present those photos as evidence. However, still photos are not as likely to show the case as moving pictures might.

You can always try a TBWD and submitting a notarized statement from your witness and the photos and if that fails, you can go to trial.

- Carl

 

[HomeGuru]

I do have numerous pictures of the guy crossing while cars were quickly approaching and my passenger is willing to write a statement declaring the abruptness of the pedestrian's entrance into the crosswalk.

Is there anything else I should gather or furnish to better my defense in court?

Thanks for all your help, guys

**A: videos would be even better.

 

[JIMinCA]

You have got to be kidding me!!! An undercover sting operation to catch people not yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk!!!! I wonder if they got that assignment from Arnold himself!!! Anyone who says that CA doesn't use traffic tickets to generate income is just blind....

I don't think you have a case of entrapment as that would constitute the state persuading you to commit an offense you would not have othewise committed. I think what you have is simply the undercover cop was violating the law:

21950(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of
using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly
leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path
of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

Either way... this kind of stupidity on these cop's part does nothing but push a wedge between the police department and the public that they are supposed to SERVE!!!

 

[CdwJava]

This is commonly done in areas where there have been vehicle versus pedestrian collisions where the vehicles have been at fault. Far too often, the drivers are not paying attention and there are either serious injury or fatal collisions, or sufficient near misses that the locals complain.

Yes, Jim, it is a valid method of enforcement when done properly, and is a very useful tool of enforcement (most the people who observed it will likely be paying closer attention for a while - thus, become safer drivers). I have no idea whether they are really jumping out in front of traffic or not, but I suspect their sudden appearance is really not so sudden. If they are doing it right, they are stepping out into the crosswalk after accounting for the speed and distance of the approaching vehicles.

- Carl

 

[JIMinCA]

Well... obviously these cops were assigned to this duty. Therefore, they were EXPECTED to produce violations. That means they were potentially biased. Given the testimony of the OP and his witness to counter what will obviously be the testimony of the biased cop, I'm sure he can raise reasonable doubt. The only question is, will a judge rule according to the law or will he simply want to reward the cops for all their hard work....

 

[The Occultist]

The only question is, will a judge rule according to the law or will he simply want to reward the cops for all their hard work....

I'm confused what you mean here. I'll grant I've not read the CA code, but in my state, whether or not the pedestrian should have been in the crosswalk (and the ped will receive a ticket if necessary) does NOT get the driver out of a ticket for failing to yield.

Also, reward? Are the cops getting a sweet bonus for every one of these tickets? And the judge is the one to assess the bonuses?

 

[JIMinCA]

I'm confused what you mean here. I'll grant I've not read the CA code, but in my state, whether or not the pedestrian should have been in the crosswalk (and the ped will receive a ticket if necessary) does NOT get the driver out of a ticket for failing to yield.

A pedestrian can't simply JUMP out in front of you and then you be held responsible for failing to yield. That should just be obvious....

Also, reward? Are the cops getting a sweet bonus for every one of these tickets? And the judge is the one to assess the bonuses?

Cops do get performance appraisals... and in order to get good reviews, a cop must "produce". So, indirectly, yes... cops do get a sweet bonus for writing tickets.

What do you think the commander/chief would have thought if these cops went out for the "sting" operation and not written any tickets? Do you think they could have simply said "everyone was obeying the law!" They would have gotten their butts kicked.

 

[j_vckrs]

Just take it to court....your evidence alone will make a judge shake his head dismiss your case...traffic judges can't stand anything getting in the way from their 3' o'clock tee time..

 

[The Occultist]

A pedestrian can't simply JUMP out in front of you and then you be held responsible for failing to yield. That should just be obvious....

If the undercover officers were literally jumping out into traffic, then I will absolutely concede this point to you.

Cops do get performance appraisals... and in order to get good reviews, a cop must "produce". So, indirectly, yes... cops do get a sweet bonus for writing tickets.

What do you think the commander/chief would have thought if these cops went out for the "sting" operation and not written any tickets? Do you think they could have simply said "everyone was obeying the law!" They would have gotten their butts kicked.

This I have a more difficult time swallowing.