In California, Is a traffic ticket the same as a police report

[tranquility]

There is a book by a CHP motor officer which has the theory that almost any vehicle on the road in violation of the vehicle code. What is your point?

It seems you need to belong to the Libertarian or Tea parties. Even then, The Man will bring us down. All kinds of silly laws, all kinds of silly enforcements of those laws. It seems you need a greater amount of your personal funds dedicated to a legislators golf vacation.....for "access".

 

[CdwJava]

And just for thinking, I believe it would be domestic violence that requires an arrest I believe.

Nope. The law encourages department to establish policies that ENCOURAGE arrests, but no such requirement is imposed. The only one that leaps to mind is with regards to a domestic violence restraining order. The language under PC 836 for those states that an officer "shall" make an arrest when there exists probable cause.

The laws are "zero-tolerance" and if the victim gets more seriously hurt, they may have a reckless endangerment claim on the officer.

Huh? What law?

 

[CdwJava]

It all appears to me that there is no real standards regarding how officers deal with situations where there is doubt that an equipment violation exists.

It is called "discretion." An officer may choose to write a warning, or not. If the officer has doubt, then he shouldn't write the citation as he would then be citing someone for an offense that he cannot articulate probable cause.

My example shows that 25% of officers tend to presume guilt where they do not have anything other than an existance of a blue color is on a vehicle.

What example?

And depending on the court, that is a legitimate citation. Some judges may not feel it is, but that doesn't mean any malfeasance has occurred. Until there exists controlling case law on the matter, the officer can only act on the statutes.

 

[GoldySJSU]

Nope. The law encourages department to establish policies that ENCOURAGE arrests, but no such requirement is imposed. The only one that leaps to mind is with regards to a domestic violence restraining order. The language under PC 836 for those states that an officer "shall" make an arrest when there exists probable cause.


Huh? What law?

Regarding not arresting someone when evidence shows doestic violence occurs and police do not act it can qualify as involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter differs from Penal Code 187 PC murder in that it involves an unintentional death.2

California Penal Code 192(b) PC defines "involuntary manslaughter" as an unlawful killing that takes place

2.during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection.3

Involuntary manslaughter does not apply to acts that you commit while driving a car (those are covered by California's vehicular manslaughter laws, discussed under Section 4. Related Offenses).4

Let's take a closer look at some of these terms to gain a better understanding of their legal meanings.

Without due caution and circumspection

The phrase "without due caution and circumspection" is basically synonymous with California's legal definition of "criminal negligence." It is an act which is "aggravated, reckless and flagrant and which is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinary prudent, careful person under the same circumstances as to be in disregard for human life, or an indifference to the consequences of such an act."7

Criminal negligence means that the death was not the result of inattention, mistaken judgment or misadventure. But rather it was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the aggravated, reckless or negligent conduct.

Example: In People v. Conrad Murray…the pending case against Michael Jackson's doctor…the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office charged Dr. Murray with violating Penal Code 192(b) PC California's involuntary manslaughter law for allegedly administering lethal doses of an anesthetic (propofol) to Jackson while treating him for insomnia. And although this case is still ongoing, it serves as a good example, since it is currently one of the most famous cases dealing with California's involuntary manslaughter laws.

In their complaint, the D.A. stated that "Dr. Murray did unlawfully kill Michael Joseph Jackson by acting without due caution and circumspection". Prosecutors will attempt to prove that Dr. Murray acted with criminal negligence when he administered such a large dose of the anesthetic…an anesthetic that they contend is used in preparation for surgery, not as a sleep aid (which is why it was being used). The D.A. will argue that a reasonable doctor in the same situation would not have authorized the same quantity of the drug.

Currently, Dr. Murray's California preliminary hearing is scheduled for January 4, 2011.8

 

[CdwJava]

Regarding not arresting someone when evidence shows doestic violence occurs and police do not act it can qualify as involuntary manslaughter.

Huh? Are you suggesting that a police officer can be charged with manslaughter for NOT arresting someone when there exists probable cause to do so?

And you can cite an actual legal source for that claim, correct?

Example: In People v. Conrad Murray…the pending case against Michael Jackson's doctor…the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office charged Dr. Murray with violating Penal Code 192(b) PC California's involuntary manslaughter law for allegedly administering lethal doses of an anesthetic (propofol) to Jackson while treating him for insomnia. And although this case is still ongoing, it serves as a good example, since it is currently one of the most famous cases dealing with California's involuntary manslaughter laws.

Well ... you will note that in this case, the doctor was the proximate cause of death as he administered the lethal dose. He was not standing by nor did he fail to take some action which might have otherwise saved him with certainty.

 

[GoldySJSU]

Huh? Are you suggesting that a police officer can be charged with manslaughter for NOT arresting someone when there exists probable cause to do so?

And you can cite an actual legal source for that claim, correct?


Well ... you will note that in this case, the doctor was the proximate cause of death as he administered the lethal dose. He was not standing by nor did he fail to take some action which might have otherwise saved him with certainty.

?I am not trying to be argumentative. I just wanted to throw out the idea that if an officer fails to arrest someone who poses a direct threat to the safety of someone they observe is in high risk of being seriously harmed or killed, and do not act to arrest the threat, this can be considered criminal negligence, and "INVOLUNTARY" manslaughter has the potential of being applied. If a victims attorney after major injury or death is creative, this can be a path they can choose to demand prosecution.

This has been done in some other states.

 

[CdwJava]

?I am not trying to be argumentative. I just wanted to throw out the idea that if an officer fails to arrest someone who poses a direct threat to the safety of someone they observe is in high risk of being seriously harmed or killed, and do not act to arrest the threat, this can be considered criminal negligence, and "INVOLUNTARY" manslaughter has the potential of being applied. If a victims attorney after major injury or death is creative, this can be a path they can choose to demand prosecution.

This has been done in some other states.

I doubt that the failure to arrest someone when no lawful requirement exists to make such an arrest has resulted in a criminal prosecution of an officer for manslaughter of any stripe. If you can find such a case, please post the details and a link. If such a thing were to happen it might have a chilling effect on civil rights as officers would opt to make an arrest in any circumstance for which they could articulate minimal probable cause.

 

[GoldySJSU]

CDWJava, I beleive in MA it is called mandatory arrest

There are laws in other states that give no discretion regarding this situation

Massachusetts requires madatory arrest under many situations, and "preferrs" arrest in all others. I do not know how CA deals with this.

the MGL c. 209 A Sec 6(7)

One could suppose it is better to have an angry defendant and a live victim rather than a dead or injured victim. Sounds logical.

 

[Zigner]

There are laws in other states that give no discretion regarding this situation

Massachusetts requires madatory arrest under many situations, and "preferrs" arrest in all others. I do not know how CA deals with this.

the MGL c. 209 A Sec 6(7)

One could suppose it is better to have an angry defendant and a live victim rather than a dead or injured victim. Sounds logical.

Move to MA - problem solved

 

[CdwJava]

There are laws in other states that give no discretion regarding this situation

Massachusetts requires madatory arrest under many situations, and "preferrs" arrest in all others. I do not know how CA deals with this.

CA encourages agencies to develop a pro-arrest policy, but, to my knowledge, does not mandate an arrest for any offense other than a DV TRO. How other states deal with it, I can't say. I know that many people - even cops - misinterpret the law in a belief that it says they MUST arrest, but, in reality the law says no such thing.

the MGL c. 209 A Sec 6(7)

Note the phrase, "arrest shall be the preferred response ...", not that they MUST make the arrest.

One could suppose it is better to have an angry defendant and a live victim rather than a dead or injured victim. Sounds logical.

And if you were arrested because a woman claimed you beat her and there was no other evidence to the contrary, I suspect you might say otherwise.

The Constitution exists to protect even the accused.

 

[cbg]

Move to MA - problem solved

Oh, thanks a lot, Ziggie. Dump him on us, why don't you?

And I see nothing in the MA law quoted suggesting that the hypothetical cop shall be charged with manslaughter for not arresting someone.

 

[Zigner]

Oh, thanks a lot, Ziggie. Dump him on us, why don't you?

Sorry to send him your way, but we really need to start spreading this guys around!

 

[GoldySJSU]

I think you are taking this way to seriously

I am only thowing out a possible legal theory.

I am suprised it has not been done yet, I think I saw an episode of Law and Order or SVU that theorized this idea.

And another episode where a judge knew of the danger to a child and let the mother go free and succeed where she was charged with attempted murder of the child first.

It would seem that some accountability to those who fail to prevent serious injury or death, like I believe that would be enforced on citizens by law enforcement, should also be subject to the same accountability.

Please take it easy?

 

[cbg]

Oh, well, if you saw it on Law and Order.... Of course, if a scripted TV show (that is well known for getting the law wrong) says it, it must be true.

And all of this relates to your inital question about traffic tickets how?

 

[CdwJava]

Goldy, absent the creation of a special relationship (through contract, promise, etc.) law enforcement has no legal requirement to protect anyone whereas a mother, father, or legal guardian does.

I am still waiting for any proof whatsoever that an officer will be prosecuted for failing to make an arrest of a suspect who was later involved in a killing.