Given a ticket not related to the actual violation

[demurringdude]

Well, officers approached them and told them if they plea guilty, they will be willing to ask the judge to change their traffic violation code to muni code so it won't count as a point!

It just amazes me that any judge would allow a police officer to effectively make a motion to dismiss a criminal charge, (and then make a civil complaint that is acted on immediately by the court). That is something only a lawyer is allowed to do in California.

The last time I was in traffic court, a case was called, and a police officer stood up and said "The People move to dismiss in the interests of justice", and instead of the judge saying 'Bailiff, tell that witness to shut up and stop pretending to be a lawyer", he said "Granted".

 

[I_Got_Banned]

The last time I was in traffic court, a case was called, and a police officer stood up and said "The People move to dismiss in the interests of justice", and instead of the judge saying 'Bailiff, tell that witness to shut up and stop pretending to be a lawyer", he said "Granted".

Here's an excerpt from the CVC (3rd paragraph from the cited subsection)

CVC 40500(d)​

If, after an arrested person has signed and received a copy of a notice to appear, the arresting officer or other officer of the issuing agency, determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation or notice should be dismissed, the arresting agency may recommend, in writing, to the magistrate or judge that the case be dismissed. The recommendation shall cite the reasons for the recommendation and be filed with the court.​

​

And yes, the way the statute reads, the officer may recomend, in writing, however, and the way you tell the story, you have no idea whether that recomendation was made in writing prior to the court session or not. Maybe the officer did in fact submit something in writing and when the case was called, made the verbal motion to dismiss on the record.

Point is, the officer did not need to shut up and the judge did not need to admonish him!

 

[demurringdude]

Point is, the officer did not need to shut up and the judge did not need to admonish him!

Sure they did. That statute you cite has zero applicability. It was a red-light camera pretend-court. The defendant had not been arrested and had not signed a promise to appear, so it doesn't even start to be relevant. In any case, the officer didn't make a "recommendation" in writing, as required by that statute, she stood up in court and moved to dismiss, and used the word "move". And you can't move anything in court unless you are the defendant or a lawyer (or the judge). If the defendant's witness "moved" something, you can bet the judge would throw them out.

 

[demurringdude]

Maybe the officer did in fact submit something in writing and when the case was called, made the verbal motion to dismiss on the record.

I enjoy your excellent jests.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

That statute you cite has zero applicability.

Only because it proved you wrong!

First, you never mentioned that it was a red light camera ticket. Second, are you suggesting that because this is a red light camera citation that the officer is bound by a different set of rules as to how he/she can conduct him/herself?

It was a red-light camera pretend-court.

If it is "pretend court", then why are you suggesting that they should conform to the rules of court and to the statutes and laws of the state of California? If it is "pretend court", then why are you holding the judge to the standards that you THINK apply in a real court? If it was "pretend" court, then why does anyone have to appear to answer to any of the charges that they were cited for? What were you doing there? Filming a documentary about "pretend" court? or were you there answering to a "pretend" citation that you were issued?

The defendant had not been arrested and had not signed a promise to appear, so it doesn't even start to be relevant. In any case, the officer didn't make a "recommendation" in writing, as required by that statute, she stood up in court and moved to dismiss, and used the word "move". And you can't move anything in court unless you are the defendant or a lawyer (or the judge). If the defendant's witness "moved" something, you can bet the judge would throw them out.

Point is, you posted a story about an officer that stood up in court and moved for a dismissal, then you added your rant about how she should have been told to "shut up" when in fact, and pursuant to the statute I cited, an officer does have the ability to make such a motinon to recommend that the court dismiss a citation in the interest of justice.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that the officer, and ofr whatever reason, felt that the defendant should not be held to answer to the charge(s) in the citation, should still have to go through the process of trial instead of recommending that it be dismissed at the outset then you are obviously wrong. If you want to argue that then keep on arguing... You will still be wrong when you're done!

Also, by virtue of the story that you posted, your arguments (which you made in other threads -about how red light citations are issued in what you describe as a "sausage factory"-) are invalid, especially considering the fact that your story, in and of itself, is perfect proof that these citations are, at times, reviewed for accuracy and applicability.

At any rate, most of these issues are irrelevant to the original question posed by the OP, more that a year ago... So feel free to continue to post here if you so choose. Just remember that if you continue to offer incorrect information (just like you have done here AND in the past) which is based on your uneducated and unsubstantiated opinions and only because you THINK they you are right, someone is bound to call you on your errors (just like I have done in the past).

I'm done in this thread...

 

[demurringdude]

Second, are you suggesting that because this is a red light camera citation that the officer is bound by a different set of rules as to how he/she can conduct him/herself?

Yes, of course. The statutes are different for cases in which there is no arrest or promise to appear. For example an officer could not make a recommendation to the court in an automated red light case under the statute you cited. But he could in other types of case where there was an arrest or promise to appear. In any case, he can never make a motion in court, under any circumstances, because he is not a lawyer.

What were you doing there? Filming a documentary about "pretend" court? or were you there answering to a "pretend" citation that you were issued?

Ha! Good joke there about filming a documentary! Actually, I was answering a pretend citation spat out by a computer. I call it pretend court, because all the actors except the defendant are simply role-playing. The police officer is pretending to be a witness, but is actually the prosecutor. The judge pretends not to notice.

Point is, you posted a story about an officer that stood up in court and moved for a dismissal, then you added your rant about how she should have been told to "shut up" when in fact, and pursuant to the statute I cited, an officer does have the ability to make such a motinon to recommend that the court dismiss a citation in the interest of justice.

You couldn't have got that more wrong. Your irrelevant statute does not confer on a police officer the right to make a motion in court. It gives him the right (in other types of case) to write to the court with a recommendation. Not the same thing at all.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that the officer, and ofr whatever reason, felt that the defendant should not be held to answer to the charge(s) in the citation, should still have to go through the process of trial instead of recommending that it be dismissed at the outset then you are obviously wrong. If you want to argue that then keep on arguing... You will still be wrong when you're done!

I didn't argue that, so I won't keep arguing it.

Also, by virtue of the story that you posted, your arguments (which you made in other threads -about how red light citations are issued in what you describe as a "sausage factory"-) are invalid, especially considering the fact that your story, in and of itself, is perfect proof that these citations are, at times, reviewed for accuracy and applicability.

Maybe they should review them before they send them out, rather than dragging people into a three-hour red-light session? I bet the people who didn't show up didn't get any review.

At any rate, most of these issues are irrelevant to the original question posed by the OP, more that a year ago... So feel free to continue to post here if you so choose. Just remember that if you continue to offer incorrect information (just like you have done here AND in the past) which is based on your uneducated and unsubstantiated opinions and only because you THINK they you are right, someone is bound to call you on your errors (just like I have done in the past).

I'm done in this thread...

On this particular issue you chose to pick me up on (cops making motions in court), I'm right and you are wrong. So I understand your need to vent aimlessly.

 

[Pugilist]

Who do they say to pay?

For those who have received one of these tickets....

On the Long Beach 10.08.030 tickets, does it give an address to send the money to?