Bizarre, disturbing detaining after riding on bicycle

[tranquility]

One of my lawyer friends is quite the rights activist. She's in NYC and we'll speak tonight. I'd consider pursuing the matter just to have a court say the officer was wrong. I'd claim little to no damages. My friend may represent me for free...and I'd seek something like $0.01. It's a matter of principle. Not some petty reward.

Please report what she says.

 

[Silverplum]

Please report what she says.

And be sure to ask her if she's licensed to practice law in CA.

 

[tranquility]

And be sure to ask her if she's licensed to practice law in CA.

If a civil rights case, it can be filed in federal court under federal question jurisdiction and most attorneys (unless they were very bad) routinely take the oath for the federal Bar at the same time they take their state Bar oath.

 

[skyway35]

And be sure to ask her if she's licensed to practice law in CA.

She is. She lives here. Just out of town today..

 

[tranquility]

skyway35, turn on your private messages please.

 

[skyway35]

skyway35, turn on your private messages please.

They're on now...

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

It only matters in regards to how much stock I put into what you say. Given that it is an anonymous message board, it's safe to say I'll put more stock into what friends of mine who I know are lawyers say

If you claim they're saying anything other than what you've been told here you're being untruthful about what they're saying or about their existence.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

The incident occurred last night. I'll speak with them following work today. Make sense? sheesh

Not having a light on my bike was probable cause to cuff me and detain me in a police car for over an hour? Or was the probable cause for those actions that I gave a "fake" name which was not fake at all? Gathering even discussing the matter here is a waste of my time...

As I said, it went downhill from there. Once the officer suspected, due to his error, you were giving him a fake name, it appears to have spiraled. We are not in a position to judge the events from there on. What will likely happen is your lawyer friend will subpoena the cruiser cam, to see how the entire thing went down and whether there was actual justification or they were busting your chops. Without that, no one can definitely say anything other than they definitely had initial probable cause to stop you for the light. I'm sorry we cannot be more enlightening.

 

[CdwJava]

He originally cuffed me because he stated I gave him a fake name. Which I did not do.

And my understanding of the cop breaking the law in pursuit was only legal if the person being pursued posed some sort of serious threat or there was an emergency. A person biking on the sidewalk without a light wouldn't seem to qualify there

Your "understanding" is incorrect. The officer CAN affect a detention of a person for apparently violating a provision of the Vehicle Code - which, riding a bicycle after dark without a light, IS.

VC 21201 (d) A bicycle operated during darkness upon a highway, a sidewalk
where bicycle operation is not prohibited by the local jurisdiction,
or a bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways
Code, shall be equipped with all of the following:
(1) A lamp emitting a white light that, while the bicycle is in
motion, illuminates the highway, sidewalk, or bikeway in front of the
bicyclist and is visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and
from the sides of the bicycle.​

 

[CdwJava]

Your recourse is to file a civil rights lawsuit against the police officer. You may have a claim for false imprisonment. I'm not convinced that the bicycle violations gave probable cause for an arrest, although I'll admit I haven't looked.

The officer can detain a person in handcuffs and even in the back of their patrol car for a reasonable amount of time while he conducts his investigation and does what needs to be done. In this case, I suspect it was to verify the suspect's identity and to determine if any other crime has been committed. If this truly took an hour, that lengthy detention might be seen as unreasonable, but we also don't know what the officer was engaged in during that time span.

 

[CdwJava]

I was riding on the sidewalk-not the road- going northbound. The sidewalk was alongside the southbound lane, so I was, I supppose, on the wrong side but that's unclear since I was not in the road in the first place.

Since the sidewalk is also considered part of the "highway" a light was required pursuant to VC 21201(d). As such, you were committing an infraction which justified the officer's detention for reasonable suspicion that you were committing a violation of the law.

This means the officer had to also travel northbound in the southbound lane, obviously on the actual road, thus breaking the law. He also parked illegally given he was faced north on the southbound side.

He can do that to catch violators. If all a suspect had to do was cross the street to avoid capture, that'd be silly, wouldn't it?

He gets out of the vehicle and orders my hands behind my back. He tells me I gave him a fake name.

If you had no identification on you and he was unable to verify your identity, he could not very well issue you a citation. Plus, if the name and DOB you provided does not match any ID or DL in CLETS he has reasonable suspicion to detain further while he investigates.

He continues probing, trying to get me to admit I had at least a few drinks. I said I had not.

Understand that if you had been drinking, he could smell it. You say you told the officer you did not, but if you had been your body would emit a very distinctive aroma.

He continues to be very hostile. We basically sit in the car for a good hour (me having to urinate badly the entire time) and go around in circles until we just stop.

I seriously doubt that it was an hour. I can't imagine what you would argue about for an hour, or why the officer would waste that might time. But, that should be easy enough to verify with CAD (dispatch) records.

The actual charges I face are minor and likely can be reduced down to very little when I show up in court.

Reduced to what? These infractions are about as low as these things go.

But, the entire incident was quite disturbing. What, if any, action should I consider taking?

If the officer was rude and unprofessional, you can complain to the agency. However, his detention appears to be perfectly lawful. The one for riding on the wrong side of the road may be a bust, however, unless he observed you on the road at some point. You are free to argue this point at court.

What code sections were you actually cited for violating?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Nope, no chance, no way a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit per Atwater.

I disagree.

From Atwater:

Texas law expressly authorizes “[a]ny peace officer [to] arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation” of these seatbelt laws,

If California does not have a law authorizing arrest for something OP did, the arrest was a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[tranquility]

I supplied the law. Where is the issue? Stevew, review what Atwater Stands for. Your theory is incorrect. You may view the code .1 before the not arrest statute for more.

Please sir, review before disagreement.

 

[CdwJava]

There is ample case law in CA to justify a detention in handcuffs and in the back of a patrol car. Reasonableness would be a factor as would the length of the detention. I seriously doubt that an hour passed, but given the circumstances (a lone officer, a possible false name, night time) handcuffs and securing the suspect in the patrol car pending the arrival of cover would likely be just fine. Most officers I know have done this many times in their career.

 

[skyway35]

There is ample case law in CA to justify a detention in handcuffs and in the back of a patrol car. Reasonableness would be a factor as would the length of the detention. I seriously doubt that an hour passed, but given the circumstances (a lone officer, a possible false name, night time) handcuffs and securing the suspect in the patrol car pending the arrival of cover would likely be just fine. Most officers I know have done this many times in their career.

I left on my bike at 10:30 on the dot (I know because I was at a public park that shuts its lights off at 10:29 every night). I hadn't been on my bike more than 2-3 minutes before I was pulled over. This is verifiable by the location I was pulled over in relation to the park I left from. I rode my bike roughly 5 minutes after being released and reached my destination at 11:41. So, draw your own conclusions as to how long I was detained. I'm assuming your background is more closely aligned with those in law enforcement, which is fine.

The possible false name issue was resolved once the guy had my Driver License in hand and ran my name to see who I was. Once that was resolved he started with the alcohol questions. He started mention it being a DUI investigation. In California, I have serious doubts as to there being such a thing as a DUI while riding a bike. Yes, I know riding a bike while under the influence is illegal. But, it is not a DUI. Regardless, I was clear with the officer that I had not been drinking. They never performed a field sobriety test, just asked a bunch of questions desperately hoping I'd cave and say I had "had a few drinks".

I do not and have not felt there is any sort of major prize out there for me over this. I'm simply appalled that this is how civilians can be treated by those who are supposedly here to protect and to serve the public. Knowing there are many other more severe instances of this kind of police treatment of citizens is a significant issue for society...