HS 11357(b)

[CdwJava]

Call them and ask ... you should not be required to be booked, but, there may be something more to the issue.

Did you have ID on you at the time of the citation?

Even so, to my knowledge and experience pre-booking for an infraction should not be required.

 

[dmcc10880]

So I don't have to be prebooked but what should I say in court? I'd really like to keep this off the record, and I'm extremely confused as to whether or not it goes on the record. Because its still a crime, but its the level of a speeding ticket.....

Here's what you say in court... "Guilty your honor". If there are other circumstances which would prove your ignorance.... err innocence than you might want to try it on us here before you plead not guilty.

How did the cop find you in possession? Where was it found? Did you have knowledge of possession? Give us some more info.

It's an infraction and does not go on a criminal record.

 

[DRoseMVP2011]

I was pulled over for an unrelated issue (my sister forgot to put new registration sticker on her car which I was driving). The cop said he smelled marijuana and he was the K9 unit and he threatened to bring the dog over. I know it was dumb, but I figured since it was decriminalized I was better off just admitting to having it. So I grabbed it out of the middle console and handed it over.

I did not admit to being intoxicated at the time, but they suspected. Let me off without any other charges, perhaps because I had been honest about having the pot.

As for ignorance, yes I was ignorant to think that because it was decriminalized that it wouldn't still become a big deal with court dates, etc.

Here's what you say in court... "Guilty your honor". If there are other circumstances which would prove your ignorance.... err innocence than you might want to try it on us here before you plead not guilty.

How did the cop find you in possession? Where was it found? Did you have knowledge of possession? Give us some more info.

It's an infraction and does not go on a criminal record.

 

[CdwJava]

Under those circumstances, if found guilty you could also have your license suspended.

 

[DRoseMVP2011]

Under those circumstances, if found guilty you could also have your license suspended.

That would be devastating. I would like to avoid that at all costs. Any advice?

 

[Cali408nia]

Bro, you're lucky. Lucky that it's only an infraction. You were in possession in a motor vehicle for which you could have been charged under the CVC (vehicle code) instead of the HS code. Then it would have been a driving offense, it would have affected your record and your DL. You got off easy. Most cops just write you up for the HS code even if you're in a car in my experience but sometimes they aren't so nice.

Anyways you're fine since it's been brought down to an infraction. Just call the police station where you are supposed to be pre-booked and ask them what the deal is. I guarantee you with it no longer being a misdemeanor you won't have to go through all the **** you used to and it shouldn't affect your record or DL. Most employers when conducting a background check ask about misdemeanors and felonies. Infractions can be so many things. And stop debating about pot here, you're gonna get swallowed up and bullied. That's how it is if you don't agree with the masses here.

 

[CdwJava]

Bro, you're lucky. Lucky that it's only an infraction. You were in possession in a motor vehicle for which you could have been charged under the CVC (vehicle code) instead of the HS code. Then it would have been a driving offense, it would have affected your record and your DL.

Pursuant to CVC 13202(b) a court "SHALL" order the department (DMV) to revoke the license of a driver convicted of H&S 11357 "when a motor vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of such offense."

Most employers when conducting a background check ask about misdemeanors and felonies.

Under CA law most private employers can only ask about convictions for misdemeanors and felonies, not about infractions.

And stop debating about pot here, you're gonna get swallowed up and bullied. That's how it is if you don't agree with the masses here.

Silly us for actually reading up on the science. It's not the worst thing out there, but to say it is "harmless" is entirely contrary to the facts.

 

[CdwJava]

That would be devastating. I would like to avoid that at all costs. Any advice?

Short of prevailing at a court trial, or, getting so lucky that the court does not send an order and abstract to the DMV, there's not a lot that can be done to avoid it.

 

[Cali408nia]

Pursuant to CVC 13202(b) a court "SHALL" order the department (DMV) to revoke the license of a driver convicted of H&S 11357 "when a motor vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of such offense."

Could you explain this a little better? Getting cited for HS 11357(b) has nothing to do with a vehicle and that's what he was cited for. How will the court know anything about a car being involved? Does it have to do with paperwork that the citing officer fills out? It seems like you would just cite somebody for the CVC marijuana possession if that's what happened rather than cite them for H&S and then have this addendum that says that it should happen. And I did search CVC 13202 and found the whole thing and you are correct about what it says. So if this is the case, then any time a person is caught with marijuana and cited for HS11357 and it had to do with a car should have their license suspended, regardless of age, according to the letter of the law?

I guess I wasn't affected by this since I was given a diversion. It wouldn't be possible to get charges dismissed by way of diversion if it's an infraction I think. This seems like something that should be revised with the change of the law. Committing an infraction that doesn't even require a court appearance doesn't seem like something that should get your license revoked.

 

[CdwJava]

Could you explain this a little better? Getting cited for HS 11357(b) has nothing to do with a vehicle and that's what he was cited for. How will the court know anything about a car being involved?

If the officer testifies to the facts of the issue, the court will know. It might then be in the defendant's best interest to plead guilty and pay the fine rather than let it be known this involved a vehicle.

Here is the whole CVC section:

13202. (a) A court may suspend or order that the department revoke
in which case the department shall revoke the privilege of any person
to operate a motor vehicle upon conviction of any offense related to
controlled substances as defined in Division 10 (commencing with
Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code when the use of a motor
vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the commission of the
offense.
(b) A court shall order that the department revoke and the
department shall revoke the privilege of any person to operate a
motor vehicle upon conviction of a violation of Section 11350, 11351,
11352, 11353, 11357, 11359, 11360, or 11361 of the Health and Safety
Code when a motor vehicle was involved in, or incidental to, the
commission of such offense.
(c) The period of time for suspension or the period after
revocation during which the person may not apply for a license shall
be determined by the court, but in no event shall such period exceed
three years from the date of conviction.​

So if this is the case, then any time a person is caught with marijuana and cited for HS11357 and it had to do with a car should have their license suspended, regardless of age, according to the letter of the law?

Apparently so.

However, now that it is an infraction, the defendant has an opportunity to prevent the court from knowing about it by pleading guilty ahead of time. No trial means no testimony that the dope was in the car.

I guess I wasn't affected by this since I was given a diversion. It wouldn't be possible to get charges dismissed by way of diversion if it's an infraction I think.

I'm not sure. Since there is no custody time, I don't think probation would be an option and most diversion programs would probably not be an option. But, there are a plethora of local programs out there and the OP might live an area that offers it in lieu of a fine ... or, in addition to. Of course, if the OP thinks that marijuana is not a problem for him, then there would be no point in diversion.

 

[Cali408nia]

So if I'm understanding this in more layman's terms, the court could find out about the circumstances if it were taken to trial. In the past, pleading not guilty to that misdemeanor and taking it to trial could have exposed those facts, whereas pleading guilty or taking a diversion class to get the conviction expunged never went far enough for the court to uncover those facts to be able to notify the DMV.

I know a hand full of people who have been charged with HS11357 in various counties in the Bay Area and none of them have ever had any problems with their license. It may be written down as a law, but I don't think it very often comes to the point where it's invoked. In the past, the judge at the arraignments always used to offer diversion courses for first time offenders, and this posed no threat to one's license. I would consider it a loophole if a first time offender of this now infraction had to have his or her license suspended because of the way the law is written. I don't think it will come to that but if it did, I would have an issue with that.

 

[CdwJava]

If the court does not send the record to the DMV, then, of course, nothing will happen.

 

[DRoseMVP2011]

If the court does not send the record to the DMV, then, of course, nothing will happen.

So if I plead guilty ahead of time, then the court will have no chance to suspend my license?

 

[Zigner]

So if I plead guilty ahead of time, then the court will have no chance to suspend my license?

If they're gonna catch up, they're gonna catch up.

 

[DRoseMVP2011]

If they're gonna catch up, they're gonna catch up.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If HS 11357 (b) is only a infraction, and has nothing to do with a car or the dmv by itself without testimony, then why can't a guilty plea ahead of time save my DL?