• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

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

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

CdwJava

Senior Member
With the additional information provided, I agree. The new charge relates to a different event than the infraction does, so the dismissal of the infraction would not prevent filing the charges for the alleged refusal to obey an order of a peace officer.
In most instances, it is considered a cardinal sin to write a traffic infraction cite when you also have a more serious criminal offense included. The problem comes from an astute defendant (or their attorney) making a quick guilty plea and thus triggering a double jeopardy claim if the included misdemeanor is also filed. In this instance, it appears the matters are distinct and separate and the VC 2800 offense was not initially filed with the 22400.

I AM surprised that the officer did not consider this offense at the outset. Or, if he did, whether the VC 22400 was actually dismissed, or simply not filed as the DA considered the more serious offense. Perhaps after the story was related to a supervisor, they decided to pursue the VC 2800 offense even if the officer had not initially considered it. It may be a reason to justify the drawing of the Taser or other actions taken at the scene (such as reaching in and removing the keys).
 


Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Did you actually read that thoroughly? He said one cop with a taser to his face was telling him to turn off the truck, and the OTHER cop was telling him to pull over to the curb. I think most people's reactions would be to simply freeze in that circumstance. I know mine would be. He couldn't comply with both sets of demands.
Did you actually read my reply? I agree - the OP was in a no-win situation (as described). If he obeyed one command, then he disobeyed the other. If he obeyed neither, then he disobeyed them both. There is no question that the OP disobeyed a lawful command. The case would hinge on the word "wilful", and that's exactly what I said. The OP did not willfully disobey a command.

I am actually astounded that the DA is pursuing this after the judge already dismissed the case. Its a traffic violation. Why would a DA waste resources on this kind of case? There is no logic to it at all.
VC2800(a) is a separate offense from the original charge.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Did you actually read my reply? I agree - the OP was in a no-win situation (as described). If he obeyed one command, then he disobeyed the other. If he obeyed neither, then he disobeyed them both. There is no question that the OP disobeyed a lawful command. The case would hinge on the word "wilful", and that's exactly what I said. The OP did not willfully disobey a command.

VC2800(a) is a separate offense from the original charge.
I still don't understand why the DA would continue to pursue it, by pursuing a different charge. There is no logic in that unless the DA has become personally angry about the dismissal.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I still don't understand why the DA would continue to pursue it, by pursuing a different charge. There is no logic in that unless the DA has become personally angry about the dismissal.
Read CdwJava's posts.
The DA, apparently, chose to pursue a charge for a crime that s/he believes was committed.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Read CdwJava's posts.
The DA, apparently, chose to pursue a charge for a crime that s/he believes was committed.
I understand. Its just that I have a hard time believing that a DA would waste scarce resources on something like this. To me, its not logical.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
I understand. Its just that I have a hard time believing that a DA would waste scarce resources on something like this. To me, its not logical.
We have only the OP's version of events, which is of course biased in his favor. The version the cops told the DA may be quite different. The real story may be something between those two versions.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
We have only the OP's version of events, which is of course biased in his favor. The version the cops told the DA may be quite different. The real story may be something between those two versions.
Yes, it could be, but a judge dismissed the original charges. It still makes absolutely no sense to me that a DA would even TRY to find another charge in a traffic violation situation. Its illogical to me. Its a huge waste of resources to me.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Yes, it could be, but a judge dismissed the original charges. It still makes absolutely no sense to me that a DA would even TRY to find another charge in a traffic violation situation. Its illogical to me. Its a huge waste of resources to me.
It's not illogical. A charge of failing to obey an officer has nothing to do with the traffic offense. Whether the traffic offense charge was good or not doesn't matter; the OP still had to obey the cop. So the dismissal on the traffic charge tells you nothing about how good the case for the failure to obey is. It's no different than if Joe is alleged to have committed a traffic offense and then later when confronted by cops Joe shoots and kills the cop. Joe is charged with the traffic offense, which gets dismissed. The DA files the murder charge. Under your logic the murder charge should be dropped because the traffic charge was dismissed. But two are unrelated. It would be illogical to say the murder charge cannot be pursued because the traffic charge was dropped. Surely you can see that, right? Well, logically this situation is no different. The only difference is that the charge the OP faces is significantly less serious than murder. But that is only a difference of degree. The underlying principle is the same.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I understand. Its just that I have a hard time believing that a DA would waste scarce resources on something like this. To me, its not logical.
It's a misdemeanor criminal offense that is considered relatively serious. THAT is why the DA will often pursue these.
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
Yes, it could be, but a judge dismissed the original charges. It still makes absolutely no sense to me that a DA would even TRY to find another charge in a traffic violation situation. Its illogical to me. Its a huge waste of resources to me.
We do not know that a judge actually "dismissed" the original offense (impeding traffic - an infraction). More than likely, it was a matter of the cite never being filed. But, even if actually "dismissed" (which is rare, by the way), that hardly precludes a prosecutor from pursuing a more serious offense.
 

inspectit4u

Active Member
When you say the judge "dismissed" it, did the judge actually tell you the matter was dismissed? Or, had the matter NOT been filed? There IS a difference. Also, since VC 2800 is not a lesser-included offense, it is likely that the matter was pursued independent of the infraction.

This is a misdemeanor with the possibility of jail time. You should consult an attorney ASAP.
The officer showed up to court and told the judge to dismiss the charges. I have paperwork showing it was dismissed.
The reason the cop did not want to pursue is that some lady told him I was holding up traffic(during the super bloom in Lake Elsinore) Traffic was at a standstill. The cop found me 45 min later and pulled me over.
 

inspectit4u

Active Member
We do not know that a judge actually "dismissed" the original offense (impeding traffic - an infraction). More than likely, it was a matter of the cite never being filed. But, even if actually "dismissed" (which is rare, by the way), that hardly precludes a prosecutor from pursuing a more serious offense.
The cop refused to pursue ticket and told the judge to dismiss ticket
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The cop refused to pursue ticket and told the judge to dismiss ticket
Lucky for you. Though, you still appear to have that 2800 issue to address. Have you actually been served with a warrant, a summons, or otherwise served notice of the charge?
 

Sponsored Ad

Top