Ticket dismissed got a letter 1 mo. later DA wants to prosecute

[quincy]

It's not clear to me what the hearing tomorrow is for. It might simply be the arraignment on the charge, in which case all the OP will do is enter his/her plea.

Could be. No idea, really.

 

[inspectit4u]

The original infraction is irrelevant.

 

[inspectit4u]

I don't Understand that if the cop is their best witness also he did not see the supposed infraction and he doesn't want to pursue it. He knows that he can't win because no law enforcement saw what the supposed infraction. The officer told me some lady said I did something

 

[inspectit4u]

For the 224000 infraction the officer can recommend the matter be dropped in the interests of justice. The VC 2800 filed by the DA CANNOT be recommended to be dropped - the officer has no influence inside the courtroom in this area as he is truly just a witness on the VC 2800.

Oh, and the officer WILL testify. If he is subpoenaed, he will. Do you really think he will defy the DA and risk his job just so he won't have to testify against you, a stranger?

Well if he wants to be honest and say that nothing happened yeah I would expect him to testify I have witnesses

 

[CdwJava]

I don't Understand that if the cop is their best witness also he did not see the supposed infraction and he doesn't want to pursue it. He knows that he can't win because no law enforcement saw what the supposed infraction. The officer told me some lady said I did something

You say you were cited for VC 2800. THAT offense is the one that appears to still be pending, and from what you wrote ...

One officer on my side but taser to my face and told me to shut the truck off. The officer on the other side was telling me to pull over to the curb I did know what to do the cop reached in and through my keys in the middle of the street. The officer told my wife he only gave me a ticket because he was upset he had a work that day. This was during the super boom in Southern California

The officer DID see that, and the officer has ZERO say on how that one proceeds.

 

[Zigner]

I don't Understand that if the cop is their best witness also he did not see the supposed infraction and he doesn't want to pursue it. He knows that he can't win because no law enforcement saw what the supposed infraction.

The original traffic infraction has NOTHING to do with your CRIMINAL charge. I don't understand why you are being so obstinate about that...

 

[Just Blue]

The original traffic infraction has NOTHING to do with your CRIMINAL charge. I don't understand why you are being so obstinate about that...

Good thing that OP can't be cited for tunnel vision! heeheehee ...get it? heeheeheehee....

 

[inspectit4u]

Could be. No idea, really.

Yes I entered a not guilty plea today. I go back to court Nov. 4th. I was offered a deal from the DA 3 yrs probation, CDL restrictions, 20 hrs community service and $1100.00 fine. I was stunned this is for a ticket that was already dismissed. DA changed the VC. I in no way shape or form interfered with the officer. I guess I will have to subpoena the officer since he already refused to testify and had the judge dismiss the ticket. A quick question are we not innocent until proven guilty? This case has not even been to trial and I lost out on a job because this case shows up on a background check.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Yes I entered a not guilty plea today.

That's what I figured, since this was your first court date it was the arraignment.

I go back to court Nov. 4th.

Is that for the trial or is that a pre-trial hearing date?

I was offered a deal from the DA 3 yrs probation, CDL restrictions, 20 hrs community service and $1100.00 fine.

I assume you didn't take the offer since you plead not guilty. Whether the offer by the DA might be worthwhile is something you'd certainly want to review with a lawyer before accepting.

I was stunned this is for a ticket that was already dismissed.

It's not for the traffic charge that was previously dismissed. It was for a charge of interfering with an officer. What is the exact code section you are charged with? There are several sections that deal with interfering or impeding a police officer.

I guess I will have to subpoena the officer since he already refused to testify and had the judge dismiss the ticket.

Why would you want to do that? The DA will be sure to have the officer that claims you interfered with him at the trial. Without the officer's testimony the DA would have no case. And if you are thinking of having some other officer testify, what would be the purpose of it?

A quick question are we not innocent until proven guilty? This case has not even been to trial and I lost out on a job because this case shows up on a background check.

This is something that is often misunderstood. You are innocent until proven guilty, but what that means is that at the start of the trial the jury is told you are innocent until the state proves you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the state has to prove you guilty; you don't have to prove innocence.

The problem is, though, that outside the courtroom employers and members of the public are free to think whatever they like about whether you might be guilty even before the trial starts. A lot of employers will see the pending charges and not hire you not because they think you are guilty, but rather because they can't be sure that you are not guilty and they don't want to risk hiring someone who turns out to be convicted of a crime.

 

[Zigner]

It's not for the traffic charge that was previously dismissed. It was for a charge of interfering with an officer.

I don't know why inspectit4u can't understand that concept, even after it has been explained so many times.

 

[inspectit4u]

I don't know why inspectit4u can't understand that concept, even after it has been explained so many times.

Heres why I was given a ticket for impeding traffic. That was dismissed and a month later the DA tries to change it from an infraction to a misdemeanor. Why can't you understand the concept of this was a traffic ticket that was dismissed. There was no interfering with a police officer. The DA has made up that charge. The officer never stated that I interfered with him. This was never any mention of the original ticket that I did. They say I impeded traffic not interfered with an officer. Can you understand the concept that I did not interfere and the officer has never accused me of interfering?

 

[CdwJava]

Heres why I was given a ticket for impeding traffic. That was dismissed and a month later the DA tries to change it from an infraction to a misdemeanor.

No. What YOU wrote was that you were cited for impeding, you went to court, and the officer asked that it be dismissed (in the interest of justice). It was.

THEN, for some reason, the apparent issue of your failure to yield came to the DA's attention and the DA filed that crimional offense (the VC 2800). THIS offense is not directly connected to your impeding offense.

Why can't you understand the concept of this was a traffic ticket that was dismissed. There was no interfering with a police officer. The DA has made up that charge. The officer never stated that I interfered with him. This was never any mention of the original ticket that I did. They say I impeded traffic not interfered with an officer. Can you understand the concept that I did not interfere and the officer has never accused me of interfering?

The DA did not make up the charge. SOMEONE (presumably one of the involved officers) generated a report of your actions and that report was sent to the DA. Upon review, the DA decided you should be charged. If there was no failure to yield offense, you should have nothing to worry about. It does not matter a whit whether the officer said this to you or whether you think you did or not. For your purposes, all that matters is that at the DA has apparently initiated charges against you. Since you can go to jail for violating VC 2800 you should get an attorney, or, when you are arraigned, request appointed counsel if you cannot afford one. Maybe said counsel can explain all this to you better than the rest of us have. Because unless you have completely mucked up the explanation to us (including the relevant code sections and events), you are not comprehending how criminal charges and the justice system works.

 

[inspectit4u]

So then who is accusing me of interfering? Not the cop he knew the ticket would not stand up in court. The DA's accusing me? They just makeup things and see what sticks? Maybe you can explain to me how they can charge me for something that I was not accused of? How they can magically make up a charge of interfering with an officer when that was never even a charge?

 

[inspectit4u]

No. What YOU wrote was that you were cited for impeding, you went to court, and the officer asked that it be dismissed (in the interest of justice). It was.

THEN, for some reason, the apparent issue of your failure to yield came to the DA's attention and the DA filed that crimional offense (the VC 2800). THIS offense is not directly connected to your impeding offense.


The DA did not make up the charge. SOMEONE (presumably one of the involved officers) generated a report of your actions and that report was sent to the DA. Upon review, the DA decided you should be charged. If there was no failure to yield offense, you should have nothing to worry about. It does not matter a whit whether the officer said this to you or whether you think you did or not. For your purposes, all that matters is that at the DA has apparently initiated charges against you. Since you can go to jail for violating VC 2800 you should get an attorney, or, when you are arraigned, request appointed counsel if you cannot afford one. Maybe said counsel can explain all this to you better than the rest of us have. Because unless you have completely mucked up the explanation to us (including the relevant code sections and events), you are not comprehending how criminal charges and the justice system works.

What failure to yield? They told me to pull over there was never any failure to do anything. He wrote a ticket for impeding traffic not interfering with with him. So how does the DA change the charge? I appreciate your input I guess it is just real hard for me to be accused of something that I'm no guilty of.

 

[CdwJava]

Here is what you wrote:

"California) I received a ticket for impeding traffic VC 22400A. I went to court and the judge dismissed it. A month later I recieve a letter from the DA trying to prosecute me. He Changed the vehicle code to VC 2800A"

VC 22400 is impeding.

VC 2800 is a failure to yield (though it can be expanded to include other directions, even if most commonly used for failure to yield):

2800(a) It is unlawful to willfully fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order, signal, or direction of a peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, when that peace officer is in uniform and is performing duties pursuant to any of the provisions of this code, or to refuse to submit to a lawful inspection pursuant to this code.

And, you went on to explain how you went to court and the officer asked to dismiss the VC 24400. And, you wrote that the DA filed VC 2800. These are TWO SEPARATE OFFENSES. So, go out and get that lawyer.