Question about 148(A)(1) PC

[CdwJava]

It is not BULL when cops lie since this is what i see in my report.

You believe A cop lied. Even if true, it hardly follows that all or even most cops lie.

And if you are hanging your hat on his statement that says you refused to cooperate, you do not understand what the police report is supposed to be for. it is not an exact recounting of verbatim statements, and it is not evidence.

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.

No, that is not what it means. Under the CVC if any part of the plate is obstructed it is a violation. Most people that have license plate frames or trailer hitches can easily fall into this pitfall. It is certainly an issue that can be argued in court in a motion to suppress based upon a lack of reasonable suspicion for the detention, but that's not likely to prevail. It might, but it's not likely to unless the officer admits that there was no obstruction.

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.

Okay. But, he could have asked you to step out of the car for any reason - or even for no reason. Whether he could have compelled you to step out of the car is another story.

Then went from there he simply did not like me... now do they lie or you still do not agree.

Again, MAYBE this one lied, that does not extend to all or most.

Plus, he does not have to tell you the truth out in the field. No law requires it. There are limits as to what can be accomplished through deception, and an officer has to be careful that he does not create involuntary consent through such a deception, but he can certainly say your eyes look weird and ask you to step out of the car. If he ORDERS you to step out of the car, then he'd better have something to articulate later on besides "weird" eyes.

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.

Complete bull. NO agency, supervisor, or administrator I know of condones unlawful, unethical, or improper procedures. None. And it is not how officers are trained, either.

Officers in CA lose their jobs every day when they are discovered intentionally pushing the envelope or breaking the rules. Most the time we don't read about it because it is handled internally. If this officer is a screwup and this is verified in the internal investigation, the agency will likely take action to either correct the action in the officer through training or closer supervision, or, if it is to endemic, they might let him go. If there are no prior actions, they will likely see this as a training issue and either retrain him or put him on a very short leash for a while.

U think i dont know the system ? Trust me i just aint got the time to argue or challenge your words here.

No, you do not know the system if you characterize officer training, supervision, and officers as you do. You THINK you know it based upon your perception in one or more encounters, but that is not the system. And most people who are on the receiving end of enforcement believe they have been wronged and do not understand the precepts of the law. Almost weekly, I have to try and explain the concept of reasonable suspicion or probable cause to people that want to complain about something, and about 3 of 4 times they walk away ALMOST understanding it, but not quite. So even when the officer acted entirely within policy and the law, the person feels they were violated. I understand that, but in those cases they were not - legally, anyway.

I'm in the system and have been for two decades. I suspect I know the inner workings a good deal better than you do.

And, once again, the report is a summary of actions. Unless it is written to reflect an exact quote, it is not meant to be a literal interpretation of statements made. That would be nearly impossible short of recording and transcribing each encounter. If you declined to close your eyes and refused to cooperate any further, then his statement that you refused to cooperate is, in summary, true. If on the stand he is asked whether you said, "I will not cooperate any more," and you do not believe you said that, then that can be challenged. Although being wrong does not a lie make. Being mistaken about a conversation is not a lie.

But, as I have said from the very beginning, if the ONLY thing they have to go on is that you did not close your eyes as part of an FST then the arrest for the 148 is weak, and I cannot see how a prosecution will prevail. My prediction would be that it does not go to trial if that is all they have to go on since you do not have to participate in the FSTs in the first place. Now, if they have something else, then, maybe.

 

[grishid]

Yes the only thing is that he states the reason of the arrest pretty much i did not close my eyes and the reason to that was I did not want to conduct the FST since he never explain what he was doing. That's first.

Second, I know and i have asked cops myself and I have worked with cops as well and he said im sorry but we do lie and i have seen news and other that most cops lie. Just because we do not see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The only time we see is where its caught on camera or voice recording and so on. Just like someone speeding just because he nver got a ticket doesn't mean he never speed.

Third, I do not say i know a whole lot but i know enough to determine as to what i've seen and what experience i've had in the past. Some let it go and some escolated since the power was given to them. Remember, cops are like any other ppl. They do mistakes and they lie to if they have to.

IF a cop does not make an arrest within a period of time, his supervios is being on him and says wtf is going on you need to start looking for crimes. As a result, they are forced to pick on some citizen whoever comes in hand and they want the citizen to resist or conduct illegal activity so that they could have legitimate reason.

Some citizens do not have the knowledge of law as a result they do not know what to do and how to do it.

Anyway, well thanks for the tips anyway. but i see the only person here knows a little more than everyone is you . you always respond to all questions at least giving your opinions or as to what you know from your experience.

 

[CdwJava]

Second, I know and i have asked cops myself and I have worked with cops as well and he said im sorry but we do lie and i have seen news and other that most cops lie.

Then the cops you spoke to were morons and possibly unethical themselves, or you misunderstood what they said. As i mentioned, we DO lie at times to people ... that's not the same as intentionally falsifying a police report.

And news stories? As objective evidence of anything? Really? You wouldn't happen to have a link to some reputable news source that cites such a claim, would you?

IF a cop does not make an arrest within a period of time, his supervios is being on him and says wtf is going on you need to start looking for crimes.

Of course they are expected to do their job. But no officer is expected or encouraged to break the law. None. Well, I suppose there might be an odd, unethical supervisor out there somewhere that encourages such a thing, but I have yet to meet one or hear of one. At least not out here in CA.

No "stat" is worth going to prison for, especially when there are plenty of legitimate criminals out there. One does not have to go very far to find a traffic violator or a real drunk or druggie, so why risk unemployment and even prison and make it up? It makes no sense from any perspective. Yeah, I suppose it happens, but it's an anomaly.

Anyway, well thanks for the tips anyway. but i see the only person here knows a little more than everyone is you . you always respond to all questions at least giving your opinions or as to what you know from your experience.

I try.

And it's a little more than experience as I have a lot of training and education in the areas of police work and criminal justice.

 

[grishid]

Aright bro... topic closed!

lol

 

[dave33]

Unfortunately this is how the system works. Most people do not have the resources to mount a defense for such a charge. Especially one that results in no prison time. Most criminal charges end in a plea, and I would think the d.a. is expecting or hoping for the same here. In many situations such as these an officer can embellish a little because there is no way to prove otherwise. Depending how an officer uses their training and past experience, they can make a lot of ridiculous charges stick. Also, as you can see in this case almost any action or even inaction can be made to be a criminal charge. Stretch the truth a little or change a word here or there and you've got a criminal charge to defend against. It seems if the account you gave of the situation is close you are being charged for annoying the officer. I highly doubt that will be in the report. I hope you prevail, too many people are forced to plea with the threat of jail. goodluck.