What to do when the ticketing officer fraudulently signed her name as someone else?

[k23h9723]

What is the name of your state? CA

So I got a ticket the other day and the ticketing officer was a female, gave me a ticket and went on her way. I later looked at the ticket carefully and found the signature was "Bryce Dale". I felt kinda odd since it did not sound like a female name, but whatever. The signature also shows Bryce D as far as I can tell. After about 2 weeks and I got a letter from the police station saying, there is an error on the ticket, the ticketing officer is actually Ch-xxx-ne P. So I want to know what are my rights here? Obviously she fraudulently signed the ticket on the spot, there wasn't no other police officer at the scene and there couldn't be possibly a Bruce hiding somewhere. BTW, the ticket was for blipped on the horn. The guy in front of me was looking at his phone when the light turn green, I waited for a sec and blipped the horn twice - The officer pulled me over and yelled, yes she yelled at me "Do you know that's how road rage happens?" Go figure!

 

[Taxing Matters]

Was the ticket actually hand signed? Or was it electronically signed? The details matter. If it was electronically signed it is possible that computer picked the wrong officer's name and she just didn't catch it, for example. So assuming that it was deliberate might not be accurate.

In any event, the PD caught the signature error and corrected it, notifying you of the correct name of the officer. Unless you can make the argument that your defense in the case was somehow significantly prejudiced by this I'm not seeing where it helps you at all. You were charged with an offense and can make your defense in court if you have one.

 

[CdwJava]

Was there another officer with the citing officer?

It could be there were two officers in the car, two officers on the stop, or, the issuing officer and the "arresting" officer were different people and that created the mix-up. Hard to imagine that an officer would forget their name and sign the wrong name to the ticket, so I suspect that there is a more reasonable explanation (like, perhaps, the electronic cite that TM mentioned).

However, since you were notified of the amendment prior to your arraignment, this is essentially a non-issue unless, as previously stated, you can show that this change of name somehow prejudices the process against you.

Better to prepare an actual defense to the charges. Or, consider whether traffic school is a necessity and consider pleading guilty in order to preserve your ability to take traffic school (if otherwise eligible).

 

[ShyCat]

As for Bryce not sounding like a female name, it is not unheard of and is not evidence like you think it is. Actor/director Ron Howard's talented actress daughter is Bryce Dallas Howard.

 

[RJR]

FRAUD would not be the legal implication , the officer is known, not assuming another's identity.

Error, mistake, incompetence, daydreaming......

 

[Ohiogal]

there is also another possibility... maybe the officer has been known by both names and is transitioning.

 

[FlyingRon]

What it boils down to really is whether the officer that shows up to testify against you is the one that observed the violation.

I've never known someone in transition to change the last name (though I guess it's possible). Bryce is a pretty gender-neutral first name these days. It's origins are from a Scottish surname.

 

[k23h9723]

Was the ticket actually hand signed? Or was it electronically signed? The details matter. If it was electronically signed it is possible that computer picked the wrong officer's name and she just didn't catch it, for example. So assuming that it was deliberate might not be accurate.

In any event, the PD caught the signature error and corrected it, notifying you of the correct name of the officer. Unless you can make the argument that your defense in the case was somehow significantly prejudiced by this I'm not seeing where it helps you at all. You were charged with an offense and can make your defense in court if you have one.

Yes, it was hand signed and there was not any other officer in the car or at the scene.

Fair enough.

 

[k23h9723]

What it boils down to really is whether the officer that shows up to testify against you is the one that observed the violation.

I've never known someone in transition to change the last name (though I guess it's possible). Bryce is a pretty gender-neutral first name these days. It's origins are from a Scottish surname.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. As long as whoever shows up in court is the one who gave me the ticket then we are good. I am not a lawyer, but hand signing someone else's name on a legal document is a fraud as far as I know.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. As long as whoever shows up in court is the one who gave me the ticket then we are good. I am not a lawyer, but hand signing someone else's name on a legal document is a fraud as far as I know.

It's a fraud if it results in you incurring some loss or damage that you would not have incurred if the correct information were provided. Here you have not suffered any loss as result of this; it's not like you are losing money because of it that you would not have lost had you had the correct information.

 

[FlyingRon]

Actually, making him lose money isn't fraud. The person who is guilty of fraud has to receive the benefit (property, money, services) of the person being defauded to be ciriminal fraud (at least in California).

 

[Whoops2u]

Actually, making him lose money isn't fraud. The person who is guilty of fraud has to receive the benefit (property, money, services) of the person being defauded to be ciriminal fraud (at least in California).

I'm not sure I agree with the comment the person guilty "has" to receive the benefit. Theft by trick is different from theft by false pretenses only as the former gets possession and the latter gets possession and title to the object. There really isn't a "fraud" crime in CA.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/1800/1804/

2. The defendant did so intending to persuade the owner [or the
owner’s agent] to let the defendant [or another person] take
possession and ownership of the property;
AND
3. The owner [or the owner’s agent] let the defendant [or another
person] take possession and ownership of the property because
the owner [or the owner’s agent] relied on the representation or
pretense.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Actually, making him lose money isn't fraud. The person who is guilty of fraud has to receive the benefit (property, money, services) of the person being defauded to be ciriminal fraud (at least in California).

Fraud is a civil claim in California (and every other state). It can also be a criminal charge too, though it may go by some name other than fraud in some states. It is not necessary for the person committing the fraud to get the benefit of it. If that person is the agent or employee of the person benefitting from it that is generally sufficient. Here, the officer is an employee of the government that would, at least indirectly, benefit so one might indeed meet that element. The problem for the OP here is more basic: the difference in the name in no way mislead the OP in terms what to do to defend against the charge. There is no material misrepresentation of fact involved.

 

[HighwayMan]

I'm not sure...

Welcome back.

 

[NeilTheCop]

One possibility is that the female officer was not yet certified and cannot legally sign a ticket, bur her FTO (Field Training officer) can, and it's possibly his signature.
I signed plenty when I was an FTO but always noted on the citation that I had signed on behalf of the trainee.