Bizarre, disturbing detaining after riding on bicycle

[skyway35]

Your understanding of the law is incorrect.

That's why I came here. That said, I do wonder exactly what the background of those giving advice here is. I gather there are more with a background in or connections to police officers than lawyers

 

[Silverplum]

That's why I came here. That said, I do wonder exactly what the background of those giving advice here is. I gather there are more with a background in or connections to police officers than lawyers

Is that what you think?

I'm neither.

 

[skyway35]

Is that what you think?

I'm neither.

If you don't mind my asking, what is your background in legal matters such as this? Are you just someone who tends to think everyone is always guilty as charged and the police are never wrong?

 

[Zigner]

Is that what you think?

I'm neither.

Ditto .

 

[TheGeekess]

If you don't mind my asking, what is your background in legal matters such as this? Are you just someone who tends to think everyone is always guilty as charged and the police are never wrong?

FreeAdvice does NOT vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any posting on the Forums or the identity or qualifications of any person asking questions or responding on the Forums.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

That's why I came here. That said, I do wonder exactly what the background of those giving advice here is. I gather there are more with a background in or connections to police officers than lawyers

If what I responded to was a matter of opinion, that might matter. Being a matter of fact or a matter of law if you prefer, it doesn't matter who I am or what I do.

 

[skyway35]

If what I responded to was a matter of opinion, that might matter. Being a matter of fact or a matter of law if you prefer, it doesn't matter who I am or what I do.

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

 

[Silverplum]

What matters is the law I posted.

Plus, the lesson I taught you on how to choose your words with more care.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

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 they are really your friends and giving you free info, you would not be here. As you were breaking the law, by not having a light, that was probable cause. Your credibility with the officer went downhill from there. You might get out of the ticket for riding against the flow of traffic.

 

[skyway35]

If they are really your friends and giving you free info, you would not be here. As you were breaking the law, by not having a light, that was probable cause. Your credibility with the officer went downhill from there. You might get out of the ticket for riding against the flow of traffic.

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...

 

[tranquility]

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...

In a Texas case Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), a woman was arrested and taken to jail for a seat belt violation even though the law did not allow for custodial arrest for that violation. The court held:

Held: The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine. Pp. 4—33.

If the police have probable cause to believe you have committed ANY crime, they can arrest you without violating the 4th amendment. Even driving on the sidewalk with your bike or not having a light on in the night. Probable cause are facts and circumstances that would have a reasonable person with like training and experience to believe a crime has or is occurring.

As I said, however, there is a California statute that prevents custodial arrest for minor violations except for certain circumstances. (One of those circumstances is if you don't adequately identify yourself. I don't think that portion if relevant here.) The only question is, is putting you in handcuffs in the back of the police car enough of a custodial arrest to be in violation of the statue? Many cases hold a suspect in the back of a police car in handcuffs has been arrested. But, that term is very technical and means different things in different contexts. (For example, a person having been given a citation has been arrested as well.) A police officer, for any of a number of reasons, can handcuff you and sit you down on the pavement without there being an actual arrest, just a detention.

No one is going to litigate or care to discuss as to if the custodial arrest statute was violated on these facts. The key issue of the law is to make sure minor crimes are not punished by jail time. You didn't get jail time so I would suspect, even if expertly litigated, there would be no violation of the statute.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

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...

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.

So, in your lawsuit, how much will you claim as damages? Since you have no permanent injuries, you can't collect for medical costs. I don't know what juries are awarding for pain and suffering in the form of having to pee for an hour, but I suspect it's not a big number.

You can talk to a civil rights attorney, but my suspicion is that it's not going to be worth an attorney's time, but you never know. Maybe you'll find one who has experience with civil rights lawsuits and has a lot of time on his or her hands. If you win a 1983 civil rights suit, the loser ends up paying your attorney fees, in addition to whatever you get.

 

[tranquility]

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.

So, in your lawsuit, how much will you claim as damages? Since you have no permanent injuries, you can't collect for medical costs. I don't know what juries are awarding for pain and suffering in the form of having to pee for an hour, but I suspect it's not a big number.

You can talk to a civil rights attorney, but my suspicion is that it's not going to be worth an attorney's time, but you never know. Maybe you'll find one who has experience with civil rights lawsuits and has a lot of time on his or her hands. If you win a 1983 civil rights suit, the loser ends up paying your attorney fees, in addition to whatever you get.

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

As to the crime (And, that's assuming just riding on the sidewalk is not illegal where the OP was.):

V C Section 21201 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Requirements

21201. (a) No person shall operate a bicycle on a roadway unless it is equipped with a brake which will enable the operator to make one braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.

(b) No person shall operate on the highway a bicycle equipped with handlebars so raised that the operator must elevate his hands above the level of his shoulders in order to grasp the normal steering grip area.

(c) No person shall operate upon a highway a bicycle that is of a size that prevents the operator from safely stopping the bicycle, supporting it in an upright position with at least one foot on the ground, and restarting it in a safe manner.

(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.

(2) A red reflector on the rear that shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle.

(3) A white or yellow reflector on each pedal, shoe, or ankle visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet.

(4) A white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle, except that bicycles that are equipped with reflectorized tires on the front and the rear need not be equipped with these side reflectors.

(e) A lamp or lamp combination, emitting a white light, attached to the operator and visible from a distance of 300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle, may be used in lieu of the lamp required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (d).

Amended Ch. 723, Stats. 1979. Effective January 1, 1980.
Amended Sec. 1, Ch. 232, Stats. 2007. Effective January 1, 2008.

 

[skyway35]

In a Texas case Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), a woman was arrested and taken to jail for a seat belt violation even though the law did not allow for custodial arrest for that violation. The court held:

If the police have probable cause to believe you have committed ANY crime, they can arrest you without violating the 4th amendment. Even driving on the sidewalk with your bike or not having a light on in the night. Probable cause are facts and circumstances that would have a reasonable person with like training and experience to believe a crime has or is occurring.

As I said, however, there is a California statute that prevents custodial arrest for minor violations except for certain circumstances. (One of those circumstances is if you don't adequately identify yourself. I don't think that portion if relevant here.) The only question is, is putting you in handcuffs in the back of the police car enough of a custodial arrest to be in violation of the statue? Many cases hold a suspect in the back of a police car in handcuffs has been arrested. But, that term is very technical and means different things in different contexts. (For example, a person having been given a citation has been arrested as well.) A police officer, for any of a number of reasons, can handcuff you and sit you down on the pavement without there being an actual arrest, just a detention.

No one is going to litigate or care to discuss as to if the custodial arrest statute was violated on these facts. The key issue of the law is to make sure minor crimes are not punished by jail time. You didn't get jail time so I would suspect, even if expertly litigated, there would be no violation of the statute.

Thanks. Looks like really good information.

For the record, this has never been much about what may be in it for me. This is just the latest in what seems to be an increasing level of hostility between police and civilians. You can see a lot of such issues reviewing cases in New York City, where the Stop and Frisk policy has been highly controversial. The hostility goes both ways. This officer in my case went on and on about how he had been kicked, punched spit at etc. Not by me. But as a justification for being so hostile and treating my like a gangbanger on the run from murder charges. It's not healthy for society IMO.

 

[skyway35]

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.

So, in your lawsuit, how much will you claim as damages? Since you have no permanent injuries, you can't collect for medical costs. I don't know what juries are awarding for pain and suffering in the form of having to pee for an hour, but I suspect it's not a big number.

You can talk to a civil rights attorney, but my suspicion is that it's not going to be worth an attorney's time, but you never know. Maybe you'll find one who has experience with civil rights lawsuits and has a lot of time on his or her hands. If you win a 1983 civil rights suit, the loser ends up paying your attorney fees, in addition to whatever you get.

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.