Seeing a white piece of paper in the window does not exempt it from registration violations, nor is it sufficient to prevent being detained (stopped) for such a violation.I had just purchased my vehicle on April 28, 2018 and the stop was on June 18, 2018. I had the "Dealer Notice of Sale" properly displayed on the lower passenger side of my windshield where the State licensed used auto dealer had placed it. It would have been difficult for the officer to miss seeing it when he parked his vehicle and walked into the 7-11.
Not sure what the parking issue might have been unless you were in a handicapped spot or a fire lane since most CVCs do not apply to parking lots. But, it doesn't matter since when he got behind you he saw the expired registration - THAT was sufficient for the stop.I informed the police officer that my vehicle had not been illegally parked at the 7-11 and he then stated that he "also didn't notice your (my) expired tags until he got behind me on the street".
Well, then, you have a dilemma. The good news is that you should not have been issued the cite solely for the no insurance violation (presumably VC 16028(a)) then this should not have been cites since it has to accompany a cite for another violation. If you went to court you could have fought it on that basis - or showed proof of your insurance at the time of the stop to the court - and got it either dismissed or reduced to a $25 administrative fee.He stated I was in violation of CVC 4000 (a) Expired registration and impounded my vehicle under storage authority 22651 (o). He did not cite me for the registration violation but did cite me for Failure to Provide Proof of Financial Responsibility.
But, you were not stopped for a parking violation, you were stopped for a registration violation. The officer does not need a reason to follow you from the store.spent many hours at the public law library researching the situation and determined that the stop was unlawful as the officers "reasonable suspicion" was based on his "Mistake of Law" as I had not been illegally parked
Wow! That was not smart!No, I did not retrieve my vehicle or the property in it.
If they told you that, then someone mucked up. But, if you failed to ask the right question, then that might explain why you got the runaround. Pursuant to the CVC you had 10 days to request a post storage hearing. If you did not make the request, then you tend to lose out on your opportunity to get it released by the PD.The vehicle was impounded on June 18. I had gone to the police department twice and had called within the first week, trying to speak with a Watch Commander or Lt. but was repeatedly told that the only person that I could speak to regarding the impounding of my vehicle was the officer who impounded the vehicle.
You are seeking to file a federal civil rights lawsuit???? By yourself???? There are so many reasons this is not likely to succeed.I am now preparing a 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint for Federal Court
There are exceptions. Depending on the value of the car, the matter may be outside of Small Claims and may permit the OP from hiring an attorney who may be able to identify an exception. But, I tend to agree that it is unlikely that a suit can be filed.In order to sue, the OP would need to have filed a claim within 6 months of the incident. I don't see any indication that s/he did so, therefor, s/he is barred from filing suit.
No. In order to sue the police department, the OP would first have had to file a claim with the police department/municipality within 6 months. If s/he failed to do so, then s/he is barred from filing a suit in any court.There are exceptions. Depending on the value of the car, the matter may be outside of Small Claims and may permit the OP from hiring an attorney who may be able to identify an exception. But, I tend to agree that it is unlikely that a suit can be filed.
I agree that there are exceptions, but they don't apply here. In any case, the OP must start with a claim, not just head to court.Well, you'd think ... but, there ARE exceptions. As custodian of records, I had to respond to orders related to suits filed well after that 6 month period. Not to mention the fact that I know government entities that had actions initiated long after that time frame - in state court. I cannot say what the exceptions are, but they do exist. I discovered long ago that for every supposed rule, there is almost always an exception.
Since the OP has taken no steps to pursue any part of due process, most any avenue they seek may be shut down to them as a result - including a lawsuit (after they were to make a claim ... which is likely too late, anyway).I agree that there are exceptions, but they don't apply here. In any case, the OP must start with a claim, not just head to court.
I filed a claim with the city 10 days after the occurrence. I filed a second and revised claim with the city just a few days before the 6 month deadline. I hand delivered it and had the City Clerk sign for it. I haven't got any response yet. I delivered it on January 3.In order to sue, the OP would need to have filed a claim within 6 months of the incident. I don't see any indication that s/he did so, therefor, s/he is barred from filing suit.