Traffic ticket question

[RickD427]

That seems a distinction without a difference Rick?

But there is a difference, and a very significant one to this case, as the OP explained.

According to what the OP related, as he understood the events from his sister, the following occurred:

1) The nice officer's partner observed the sister holing was was understood to be a cell phone.

2) The context of the statement is that the arresting officer did not personally observe the violation.

3) The arresting officer was in the same vehicle as was the passenger officer, and therefore would necessarily be "in the presence."

If we apply the standard that the arresting officer must "observe" the violation, the sister could not lawfully had been arrested.

If we apply the "occurred in the presence", then the sister may have been lawfully arrested.

[NorCalBusa]

But there is a difference, and a very significant one to this case, as the OP explained.

According to what the OP related, as he understood the events from his sister, the following occurred:

1) The nice officer's partner observed the sister holing was was understood to be a cell phone.

2) The context of the statement is that the arresting officer did not personally observe the violation.

3) The arresting officer was in the same vehicle as was the passenger officer, and therefore would necessarily be "in the presence."

If we apply the standard that the arresting officer must "observe" the violation, the sister could not lawfully had been arrested.

If we apply the "occurred in the presence", then the sister may have been lawfully arrested.

I felt/feel the same way as those conclusions.

Perhaps I didn't state very well the second space on citations for a second officer. I used aircraft traffic enforcement as an example, someone else mentioned wolf-pack traffic enforcement as well. Ok, no worries.

[TrailerparkTrash]

The officer that observed the violation needs to sign the ticket. I'd start there.

Not exactly. The issuing officer signs, but there is a space for the “arresting” (or witnessing) officer to have his name written on the cite as well. It’s done frequently. For instance when a detective asks a uniformed officer to stop a vehicle and issue a cite. That detective is now the “arresting” officer (yes I know, even though the driver is not arrested, it?s just a play on words), while the uniformed officer is the “issuing” agent of the actual citation.

Or when an air support officer requests a marked patrol car to conduct a stop and issue a cite to a vehicle that was witnessed from the air to have run ran a red light or stop sign. The “issuing” officer will conduct the stop and write in the name and ID of the air crew who is requesting that a motorist be issued a citation. Again, that stuff is done all the time and it does NOT require a personal signature of both officers on the cite. It only requires that the issuing officer personally write in the name and ID of the arresting (witnessing) officer. In both cases, the witnessing officer will be the one that gets subpoenaed to testify as to why he had the motorist cited in the first place. Hope that makes sense.

What I find difficult in the OP’s case however, is that if that was a CHP “detective” as someone else suggested, I find it very troubling to know that he never exited the patrol car, while the uniformed officer did. That pretty much is NEVER going to happen. An armed plain cloths detective isn?t going to merely sit idle inside a patrol car, while his uniformed partner exits and makes contact with the car they just pulled over. It just doesn?t happen like that with any agency and for officer safety issues. Both exit the patrol car. How they make an approach on the vehicle afterward varies by individual and department policies.

My guess, it was a civilian ride-a-long. A non-sworn occupant of some sort that was told to stay in the patrol car. Easy to beat in court.

[FalconLair]

Who takes their phone out of the case and holds the case in their hand while driving?

What vehicle code was your sister cited for?

23123 is what's on the ticket

and she said she didn't even realize she still had the case holder in her hand - she's 72, i don't know

she also said she'd barely started driving down the road when he pulled her over and the cellphone was put on the holder before she pulled out of the garage

she's still really butthurt about it today too - this morning i had to talk her out of driving down to the CHP and filing a complaint against the officer for "lying on her" - she's just not gonna let it go and if she's telling the truth then i don't blame her either

[GizmoSD]

If she didn?t realize she was still holding an empty phone case in her hand while driving, might be time for a license re-evaluation instead of a ticket. You kinda need two hands to drive correctly.

She should be careful what she writes down or says in court, seems like there?s a possibility she could admit a different/worse offense in an attempt to defend herself. Seen that happen plenty of times.

What?s a safe speed for someone not-focused enough to realize they?re still holding an empty (doubt it, but I?ll play along) phone case instead of the steering wheel?

I suspect there?s more to the story, but good luck to your sister.

[TrailerparkTrash]

23123
she's still really butthurt about it today too - this morning i had to talk her out of driving down to the CHP and filing a complaint against the officer for lying on her - she's just not gonna let it go and if she's telling the truth then i don't blame her either

I think you really need to talk your sister off the ledge. “Principle” goes out the window if she looks around at other people with genuine problems. Tell her to look around everyday and see others with worse things happening to them like serious declining health issues, sudden loss of loved ones and/or serious injuries that cripple and change lives forever. Maybe she?ll come to her senses and realize for $20 bucks, she truly has no problems in life to continue complaining about. I get it, it sucks she got cited, but time to move on over $20. She has no problems.

[Djantlive]

The only defense is if she is able to proof the passenger isn’t LE. The citation can be issued even if the officer didn’t see the crime as long as another officer did. The typical speed trap works that way.

[RickD427]

The only defense is if she is able to proof the passenger isn?t LE. The citation can be issued even if the officer didn?t see the crime as long as another officer did. The typical speed trap works that way.

There is no requirement for the CHP passenger to be a LEO. A civilian can provide the necesssary testimony to show the elements of the offense.

[FalconLair]

There is no requirement for the CHP passenger to be a LEO. A civilian can provide the necesssary testimony to show the elements of the offense.

Testimony as in showing up in court too and being put under oath or just stating what they feel they witnessed to an officer on patrol?

So if I stopped the first officer I seen on the street and told him i witnessed my next door neighbor run a red light earlier in the afternoon and if the officer thought I was telling him the truth then he could proceed to write a traffic ticket to my neighbor?

[RickD427]

Testimony as in showing up in court too and being put under oath or just stating what they feel they witnessed to an officer on patrol?

So if I stopped the first officer I seen on the street and told him i witnessed my next door neighbor run a red light earlier in the afternoon and if the officer thought I was telling him the truth then he could proceed to write a traffic ticket to my neighbor?

Yes, under the circumstances described here, the passenger would need to personally testify. The driver officer was not percipient to the violation and he/she/it/other cannot relate the statements made by the passenger for the purpose of asserting the truth of those statements. That's hearsay 101.

No, if you stopped an officer, and reported a traffic violation to him/her/it/other, that officer could not issue a citation unless the offense occurred in his/her/it/other's presence. Its the "in the presence" issue that makes this situation unique.

[hermosabeach]

To be fair, the out the door cost will be under $200 with court fees and such, not $20


If sis wants to play the game, no lo press has books on fighting tickets.
She can learn how to make the formal requests for both body cams, dash cams and any notes the officer has from the ticket.


You can write a letter longhand, but not hold a cell.


There is a reason why you hear honking at 80% of lights turning green. People are on their cell phones.

It's a valid problem.

[yardsale]

Could have said ??My partner saw it too?. And she didn?t hear the too. A lot is going on when you get stopped.

[yardsale]

Sorry for the punctuation errors don?t know what happened.

[pacrat]

To be fair, the out the door cost will be under $200 with court fees and such, not $20


If sis wants to play the game, no lo press has books on fighting tickets.
She can learn how to make the formal requests for both body cams, dash cams and any notes the officer has from the ticket.


You can write a letter longhand, but not hold a cell.


There is a reason why you hear honking at 80% of lights turning green. People are on their cell phones.

It's a valid problem.

Not anymore. IIRC back in 2017 maybe 19. Distracted driving laws were greatly expanded. No writing, no reading, no eating or even drinking if from a large container that requires impaired vision.

[SVT-40]

Not anymore. IIRC back in 2017 maybe 19. Distracted driving laws were greatly expanded. No writing, no reading, no eating or even drinking if from a large container that requires impaired vision.

What specific vehicle code section(s)are you referring to?