Question about 148(A)(1) PC

[CdwJava]

Yes Arraignment was already passed. It's been like about 6 months case is still going... DA filed it. I'm not taking any deals. I want dismissal or reject.

My lawyers is working on the Pitches Motion.

Why a Pitchess motion? Does your attorney have any reason to believe some sort of misconduct might exist in the officer's records? if this is simply a fishing expedition, your attorney is wringing billable hours out of you for something that he knows cannot produce fruit. Many such motions are dismissed out of hand. If granted, the judge reviews the records in camera to render an opinion.

Unless the officer has a history of complaints that are relevant to your claims and show that he might have exceeded policy or the law, it's not likely to succeed.

Also, when you mentioned about passenger being detained along with the driver. First, why is the passenger being detained under what circumstances?

When the vehicle is detained, the passengers are "seized" as well. Note that just means that they are not necessarily free to depart.

And if the passenger is being detained just for security reasons, why would the officer try to find some BS reason to start investigation for a possible of bs assumption that officer might have?

If he sees what he believes are signs of impairment on drugs or intoxication on drugs or alcohol, he can investigate further. It is not uncommon for us to stop a car load of dopers and arrest passengers for being under the influence of drugs even when the driver is not. he may have been wrong, but that does not mean he had sufficient reason to detain you and conduct further investigation. That may be for a court to decide if the matter goes to trial.

And if the officer is detaining the passenger for reason, why is he ending up arresting the subject when the subject has not done anything at the point and the officer is safe.

If he were to determine you were under the influence of drugs, or publicly intoxicated, he could arrest you for that. He does not have to be in danger to arrest for a public offense committed in his presence.

The officer at that time, conducted a pat search and it was clear that the subject was not in danger to him and could have him sit on the curb while the contact officer finishes his job.

It takes very little probable cause to justify a pat-down search for weapons. very little. And since none were found, this is not likely to be an issue.

But since the officer is afraid of the passenger that you state in your posting for officer safety.. why would the officer then start to open up a different job and different investigation when the cover officer is still in process with the driver?

You'd have to ask them. While it may not be the textbook contact-and-cover procedure, it is something that happens.

So in this case the cover officer is not watching out for the contact officer's back in case of driver my take out a gun and shoot... see what i mean? They were conducting poor "investigation" and their job duties.

No, they conducted some poor safety practices, but it does not mean the investigation was poor or that they failed to perform their duties.

If the ONLY reason the state gives to support the 148 s that you failed to close your eyes, I suspect this matter will be gone pretty quick. If they have more, well, that's anyone's game.

 

[grishid]

Yes he thinks the cops acted unlawfully and might as well have other citizines file compalints against the cop. Because, if you know the real story the cop retaliated me not just because he thought i might be under the influence of controlled substance. I was calm and cooaporative at all times with the officer. First, he asked for my identification, since I was not commiting any crime as a passenger, i asked the cop "why do you need my ID officer?" after than he is then said "your eyes are weird, step out of the car." we all know of course he will not put that in the police report and we all know majority of the cops lie on the report when they had nothing else to cover their as.s. As to that fact, I have filed internal affairs, not to mentioned when the cop took me to a police station putting me in a dark cell again asking me to conduct the same test and said if u do not do the test i will take u to county jail. I said, if u believe that i might be under the influence of controlled substance i will voluntarily give urine examination. Again he demanded me to take that test anyway, under duress I cooaporated with the officer. Later I gave urine examination as well. He had tried so many things to see if he had good arrest he failed. Which I came out clean. Then later he booked me and cited me under 148pc and released me OR. see what i mean? I have nothing to hide especially here in the post. This was police misconduct obviously.

Also, when you say the passengers are seized after a simple traffic stop I do not agree with you.

Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver’s conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop.

 

[grishid]

Pretty much the cop harassed me, violated my constitutional rights, etc. Then later ended up giving me some BS charge which is 148pc. The easiest charge just to say they had legitimate arrest.

And to answer your question when u said DA will not drop because the cop might be acted lawfully. Are you saying the DA is not backing up the cop? the DA will do everything for their officer not to be involved in any lawsuits. Take that in consideration.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes he thinks the cops acted unlawfully and might as well have other citizines file compalints against the cop.

That's fishing. Chances are good that the motion will be dismissed. But, if he knows something more than you posted here, maybe it will get before a judge in camera to see if the info (if any) is even relevant.

As to that fact, I have filed internal affairs, not to mentioned when the cop took me to a police station putting me in a dark cell again asking me to conduct the same test and said if u do not do the test i will take u to county jail. I said, if u believe that i might be under the influence of controlled substance i will voluntarily give urine examination. Again he demanded me to take that test anyway, under duress I cooaporated with the officer.

So, you did take a urine test? Do you think it might come back positive for anything?

As for the tests, the dark room was probably being used as part of the test. When properly done, a full DRE exam does include a dark room. And if he felt he had enough to arrest you for being under the influence, then a trip to county jail would have been warranted.

Whether he had enough PC or not is anyone's guess at this point. It would appear that he is at least claiming to have had reasonable suspicion to detain you for that, and that is a relatively low standard.

Later I gave urine examination as well. He had tried so many things to see if he had good arrest he failed. Which I came out clean. Then later he booked me and cited me under 148pc and released me OR. see what i mean? I have nothing to hide especially here in the post. This was police misconduct obviously.

From your account it seems to lean heavily that way, but we do not have HIS account. And the law will look at the totality of the circumstances - including the officer's account.

Also, when you say the passengers are seized after a simple traffic stop I do not agree with you.

That's fine. But, as noted in my earlier post, the U.S. Supreme Court and California Appellate Courts would appear to disagree with you.

Traffic stops typically occur as a result of suspected moving violations committed by the driver of the vehicle. Passengers cannot be held responsible for the driver’s conduct and are generally free to leave, unless police become suspicious of them during the course of the stop.

Where did I say the passengers were held accountable for the driver's actions during a traffic stop for a traffic violation? I wrote that the passengers are effectively "seized" because that is what the courts have said. That is not the same as to say there is reasonable suspicion to detain for additional inquiry or probable cause to search or arrest, only that they are not necessarily free to go about their business until the officer is done conducting his.

Pretty much the cop harassed me, violated my constitutional rights, etc. Then later ended up giving me some BS charge which is 148pc. The easiest charge just to say they had legitimate arrest.

Maybe he did. Or, maybe his actions were justified. Based upon your telling - if you have all the facts correct - then the arrest was bad and the DA is a fool to proceed. If the guy truly justified a 148 arrest SOLELY because you did not close your eyes on the FST, then the officer was wrong and the DA is pretty lame for proceeding to trial. That's what makes me wonder if there is something more that was articulated in the report to support PC 148.

And to answer your question when u said DA will not drop because the cop might be acted lawfully.

So, the DA thinks that the charges have some foundation? Well, that could be bad for you. Apparently there is more to it than you might think.

Are you saying the DA is not backing up the cop? the DA will do everything for their officer not to be involved in any lawsuits. Take that in consideration.

Since when? Maybe that happens, but I have never known a DA to go so far out on a limb to protect an officer that made a mistake. The DA still has a legal and ethical duty to proceed only with cases that he believes there exists probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that he believes he can prove at trial. I know of few prosecutors that would be willing to give up their career to stand behind an officer that screwed up.

One ADA in San Diego County once told me during a conversation involving an officer that returned a runaway minor child to her pimp without verifying some info, "Tough luck for him. He can stand tall before a judge and jury and admit to his actions, or he can lie to me about them and go to jail." (I paraphrased, but the gist is the same, and the tone was quite harsh.)

A prosecutor might hold on to a case for a while in the hopes that a defendant will plead out, but, he's not going to actually go to trial if the case is laughably bad.

And whether you can prevail in a lawsuit or not will depend a lot on what the courts decide in your case. If the probable cause for the arrest holds up, then your claims may fall flat. On the other hand, a city might settle out of court for a small amount hoping that the suit will go away. But, if you lose your 148 case, well, then your shot at the golden egg likely goes with it.

 

[grishid]

Well i think there is no camera if there was a camera the whole thing would have been dropped by now.

Let me ask you this, your driving with your friend and your a passenger seat. You have been pulled over at about 10 pm at night for a minor traffic infraction. One officer contacts your friend and the cover officer contacts you stating that he believes you are under the influence of controlled substance step out of the vehicle. Now he does the same thing to you... pat search, asking you to close your eyes. But you know you never done any illegal drugs in ur life. But simply the officer believes you are under the influence of a controlled substance with his poor credibility stating you have dry lips and you talk fast which you aren't and you are nervious which any reasonable person would be nervous little when stopped by a police. He does all kinds of test, would you wiliing to take those tests on the open public? would u close your eyes? would you open your mouth? would you caugh? would you incriminate yourself of any kind? would u stand on one feet? see what i mean? wouldn't you feel you are being harrased by some pig which has nothing to do but come and harrase you and get the tax money and go home happy? Would you conduct all of the commands? or would you stay still and maybe quite? then he arrests you and takes u jail and bs on the report saying blah blah blah which all a bs.

This case maybe taking long but my attorney says you have done nothing illegal it's just taking too long cuz the DA not wanna give up just like that. I dont know.

 

[grishid]

Also, maybe your not understanding clearly. Just simply not closing my eyes since the officer ordered me is not a crime or is it? lol

How does that obstruct the officer investigation? or resist? or delay? I thought investigation is something when an officer is on a job trying to investigate and i interfere or obstruct like go and make him delay and not let him to conduct his investigation. It's like he asks you a question and you refuse to answer the question. See what i mean? Now if you conduct the FST and officer states oops you fail. now you are automatic guilty. Do you get it? i rather do chemical test then bull**** FST.

IT's not that i have something to hide but when officers mind is set then whatever u do he is going to do it. if he planned out that he is gonna find somethig to arrest you, no matter what u do he will arrest you period. Those fking cops im talking about. Now do you get it? what would u say about it?

 

[CdwJava]

Well i think there is no camera if there was a camera the whole thing would have been dropped by now.

"In camera" is a legal term referring to the review of evidence by a judge in chambers and outside the full view of the court.

He does all kinds of test, would you wiliing to take those tests on the open public? would u close your eyes? would you open your mouth? would you caugh? would you incriminate yourself of any kind? would u stand on one feet?

It doesn't matter what I would do. The officer has a right to ask that you conduct the tests. You have a right to refuse. The officer also has a right to make an arrest if he can articulate the requisite probable cause even without the tests.

see what i mean? wouldn't you feel you are being harrased by some pig which has nothing to do but come and harrase you and get the tax money and go home happy?

Nice 'tude.

It's in the job description, friend. Identify and arrest people who break the law.

Do some cops get it wrong? Sure. Are there some who go over the top? Sure. Is this one of those cases? Maybe. But, it is not uncommon to test and arrest passengers when the officers pick up on something that indicates he or she might be under the influence.

Also, maybe your not understanding clearly. Just simply not closing my eyes since the officer ordered me is not a crime or is it?

Since there is no legal requirement to take the FSTs, and closing or opening your eyes cannot be seen as a threat (at least I cannot think of how) then I'd say it is an exercise of your rights and not an act that constitutes resisting, delaying or obstruction of an officer.

 

[grishid]

Ok. All in all, do you think there was prabable cause to arrest me? if so, what was the prabable cause? I think the cop didn't even have enough time to evaluate me, what do you think about it? Do you think the cop lack prabable cause.

Now, if any cop has suspecious reason then he can conduct an investigation.
If the cop has prabable cause then he can make an arrest.
In this case, what was the suspecious reason for an investigation, if its the dry lips talking fast and nervious? dont you believe there not sufficent enough evidence and could not be suspecious reason?
and what was the prabable cause to make an arrest? Because I refused?

 

[Zigner]

Ok. All in all, do you think there was prabable cause to arrest me? if so, what was the prabable cause? I think the cop didn't even have enough time to evaluate me, what do you think about it? Do you think the cop lack prabable cause.

Now, if any cop has suspecious reason then he can conduct an investigation.
If the cop has prabable cause then he can make an arrest.
In this case, what was the suspecious reason for an investigation, if its the dry lips talking fast and nervious? dont you believe there not sufficent enough evidence and could not be suspecious reason?
and what was the prabable cause to make an arrest? Because I refused?

There is NO WAY we can determine if there was actually PC. We're only hearing one side of the story.

 

[grishid]

Well then what is the point of questions and answers cuz you dont' even hear the cops story anyways.

 

[Zigner]

Well then what is the point of questions and answers cuz you dont' even hear the cops story anyways.

Not every question has an answer on the 'net.

 

[CdwJava]

Ok. All in all, do you think there was prabable cause to arrest me? if so, what was the prabable cause?

For PC 148(a)? If the PC was based on not closing your eyes, then I'd say, "No."

But, since the DA seems to want to move forward it appears there may be something more articulated in the officer's report than simply not closing your eyes ... unless he's running a bluff hoping you'll blink.

I think the cop didn't even have enough time to evaluate me, what do you think about it? Do you think the cop lack prabable cause.

You were not arrested for being under the influence, so the issue of the length of his evaluation would appear to be moot.

Now, if any cop has suspecious reason then he can conduct an investigation.
If the cop has prabable cause then he can make an arrest.

Well, the reasonable suspicion allows for a detention. he can investigate even without reasonable suspicion.

Yes, PC is needed for an arrest.

In this case, what was the suspecious reason for an investigation, if its the dry lips talking fast and nervious? dont you believe there not sufficent enough evidence and could not be suspecious reason?

He can ask questions on a hunch even without reasonable suspicion. Dry lips and fast speech can be articulated as reasonable suspicion for a detention and further investigation, yes. Whether this would be reasonable would be for a court to evaluate.

 

[grishid]

Ok i understand. But don't you any cop pretty much see someone and doesn't like and state oh oh you have dry lips ima investigate. Pretty much do everything and anything to arrest the guy. It could happen to anyone any normal sober person. And bs on the report and say whatever he wants. That's what happened here.

Now my job is to proof that the report is fabricated since he says "Greg told me that he would not cooaporate with my investigation" which is bs i did not say those words. lol now his making it up. I said why do you want me to close my eyes i questions the officer back not that i said i will not cooaporate. I hope there was a camera but in any case. Cops lie period. at least most of them. The rookies.

 

[CdwJava]

Ok i understand. But don't you any cop pretty much see someone and doesn't like and state oh oh you have dry lips ima investigate.

Heck, they do not have to see anything and they can still investigate.

An officer does not need reasonable suspicion to make inquiry, only to detain.

Pretty much do everything and anything to arrest the guy.

Sure. If the cop doesn't like his job or his freedom he can make up anything he wants. But, when it comes out, he's going to prison. The system as it exists today provides different levels of safeguards to protect against those sorts of abuses, but if you are asking if they can still happen, sure they can. Fortunately, they happen with such irregularity that they are still newsworthy when they do, and many hit the media nationwide when they are uncovered.

It could happen to anyone any normal sober person. And bs on the report and say whatever he wants. That's what happened here.

Yes, a sober person can be under suspicion. When utilized properly, the SFSTs can determine within an accuracy of up to 94% whether or not a person is too impaired to drive, and when properly done as part of a drug evaluation the accuracy is similarly high even though the training standard is only 75% accuracy.

In your case, the officer was never able to complete the evaluation so he would have had to go with what little he initially observed. But, for some reason, he believed that failure to comply with the FSTs constituted an act of resistance, obstruction, or delay on your part and if so, I believe he was wrong.

Now my job is to proof that the report is fabricated since he says "Greg told me that he would not cooaporate with my investigation" which is bs i did not say those words. lol now his making it up.

He may well be paraphrasing. If he asked you to close your eyes and you refused, you effectively DID say you would not cooperate.

The report is a condensed summary of the facts as the writer believed, the report is not to be taken as literal gospel and it is not evidence. His testimony would be evidence. If he attributed that as a direct quote to you on the stand, then you can certainly argue that point. But, if the summary of your actions was that you refused to cooperate, then it sounds as if he was pretty much spot on.

Cops lie period. at least most of them. The rookies.

And that is complete bull. I am sorry you believe that, but it is simply not true. Any officer caught in a lie on an official report or testifying on the stand is done as an officer. Even if the department cannot dismiss him or her, there will be no way to put the officer on the stand because his testimony would be worthless. CA has the highest standards in the nation, and we do not tolerate such actions on the whole. Does it happen? Sure,. But, when such malfeasance is discovered it is generally rooted out and disposed of.

So, if you have some kind of a source for your claim that most officers lie - especially rookies - I'd love to see it.

Now, if you are being broad and saying that officers lie to suspects and witnesses, then I would agree. Sometimes that is a useful tactic ... to be used sparingly. But there is a difference between utilizing legitimate interview tactics and knowingly and intentionally falsifying a report.

 

[grishid]

It is not BULL when cops lie since this is what i see in my report. When I haven't said anything and the cop says he did isn't that a BULL? You might be a cop and might not want to hear that cops do such act. It might not be refering to you unless you have yourself conducted the same thing.

Traffic stop was itself illegal. Traffic stop was for according to the report, Obstructed Lisence Place which means the lisence plate does not show any reasonable person would understand. But i have taken pictures of the lisence plate and it is perfect. He made up soemthing because in reality he says we are stopping you for tinted windows in the front. And when i said that the car did not have tints he said "oh it was dark we didn't see" then he went back to see if he can find shyt he came back said your frame covers the plate.... this is conversation between driver and the contact officer. now he can stop the car and start investigate to see what is wrong with the car and then issue a citiation or warning. So the stop itself is illegal. that's one
Second, he asked if had ID on me, i asked him back why do you need my ID then to retaliate he asked me to step out the car cuz my eyes are weird that's what he said. "Your eyes are weird" now saying that its a possible of racial profiling of my face construction or eyes. not exactly but he wanned to bs something to take me out of the car. Then went from there he simply did not like me... now do they lie or you still do not agree.

And when u say they dont like the job, sure they do. THey can simply harrase ppl show his supervisor couple bs arrests and say we have completed our job. U think i dont know the system ? Trust me i just aint got the time to argue or challenge your words here.

But if you were here to have conversation, i would defenetly and gladly proof even show you the report and explain what each means and show you the mistakes and how dumb the cop is and why DA would not drop the charges so early. Think logical.