How to Determine the Prosecuting Attorney for a CHP Ticket

[fatkat]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: CA

I received a ticket for speeding on the freeway; it was an interstate within the LA city limits. For discovery purposes, is the prosecuting attorney the LA City Attorney? Furthermore, for a CHP ticket, is it the rule to use the city attorney where the traffic stop occurred? For a ticket received from LA County Sheriff, the rule is the local city attorney or the county DA?
Thank you.

[That Guy]

My question involves traffic court in the State of: CA

I received a ticket for speeding on the freeway; it was an interstate within the LA city limits. For discovery purposes, is the prosecuting attorney the LA City Attorney? Furthermore, for a CHP ticket, is it the rule to use the city attorney where the traffic stop occurred? For a ticket received from LA County Sheriff, the rule is the local city attorney or the county DA?
Thank you.

Good question... If I remember correctly, the prosecuting attorney for traffic misdemeanors in the city of LA is usually the LA City Attorney... On the other hand, and since there typically is not a prosecuting attorney for traffic infraction cases, regardless of which prosecuting attorney you send it to, they will more than likely refer you to the issuing agency for the discovery material. What I would do, is send it to all three... The DA, the CA and CHP. My bet is that you'll receive it from the CHP!

[EWYLTJ]

Good question... If I remember correctly, the prosecuting attorney for traffic misdemeanors in the city of LA is usually the LA City Attorney... On the other hand, and since there typically is not a prosecuting attorney for traffic infraction cases, regardless of which prosecuting attorney you send it to, they will more than likely refer you to the issuing agency for the discovery material. What I would do, is send it to all three... The DA, the CA and CHP. My bet is that you'll receive it from the CHP!

You are absolutely wrong, TG. There is no requirement for the prosecuting attorney to appear in court, however there is NOTHING that relieves the PA from his other prosecutorial responsibilities.

[That Guy]

You are absolutely wrong, TG. There is no requirement for the prosecuting attorney to appear in court, however there is NOTHING that relieves the PA from his other prosecutorial responsibilities.

And your advice for fatkat is..... ???

[EWYLTJ]

My opinion is that he can send his discovery request to the CA and the DA and they will both tell him that they don't have any responsibilities for infractions. Frequently, the LA DA's office actually sends a letter stating such and they inappropriately cite case law to support this absurd notion. So, my advice would be that he properly send the discovery request to the CA and the DA. When he gets a response telling him that prosecutors don't have any responsibilities in infraction cases, he should make a motion to the court for dismissal on the grounds of lack of prosecution. He can cite People v. Carlucci where they state that a prosecuting attorney only need not appear in court, however there is no case that allows prosecutors to disregard ALL of their prosecutorial responsibilities.


That Guy, you are well aware of the prosecutorial farce that is perpetrated by DA offices all over this state and you continue to advise people to give into this myth. I don't understand why. First, it overlooks an excellent defense and second, it encourages such irresponsible behavior by prosecutors. You should really be advising people to stand up for their rights.

[That Guy]

My opinion is that he can send his discovery request to the CA and the DA and they will both tell him that they don't have any responsibilities for infractions.

You left out the part where they will more than likely refer him to the CHP for his discovery...

Frequently, the LA DA's office actually sends a letter stating such and they inappropriately cite case law to support this absurd notion.

“Inappropriately” and “absurd” are a reflection of YOUR own view(s). And unless you can provide a case law citation that supports such an interpretation as “precedent”, then your opinion remains as just that, an “opinion”. And by the same token, others (including me) are entitled to state theirs.

So, my advice would be that he properly send the discovery request to the CA and the DA. When he gets a response telling him that prosecutors don't have any responsibilities in infraction cases, he should make a motion to the court for dismissal on the grounds of lack of prosecution. He can cite People v. Carlucci where they state that a prosecuting attorney only need not appear in court, however there is no case that allows prosecutors to disregard ALL of their prosecutorial responsibilities.

And the likely result would be is that the court will deny the motion to dismiss, and instead, will order the officer to provide the discovery material on the date of the trial, and then order the trial to proceed.

So the OP can choose to request and (hopefully) receive discovery prior to his trial date (so that he can prepare his defense) or he can choose to walk into court on his trial date, stomp his feet, cry foul, claim that he wants his discovery to come from the DA/CA and NOT from the CHP and end up getting it from the CHP anyway...

That Guy, you are well aware of the prosecutorial farce that is perpetrated by DA offices all over this state and you continue to advise people to give into this myth. I don't understand why.

Why? Jim, you are free to offer your own opinion as being the ONLY legally proper interpretation and methodology for accomplishing this task. And similarly, I am free to offer my opinion, advice and interpretation as being the practical way of receiving discovery. If by my doing so I am contributing to what you refer to as a farce/myth/scam (or whatever you want to call it), then so be it... That too is only YOUR opinion.

Furthermore, and if the ONLY defense that the OP can come up with is to pursue discovery through the CA/DA and refuse it from the CHP, and hope that the judge will buy into it, then by all means, he is free to try it and see what happens. More power to him if he can get it accomplished that way!

My guess is that his chances of getting a dismissal in the manner you described are slim to none.... And “slim”, has left the building a long time ago!

First, it overlooks an excellent defense

If by “excellent defense” you mean that you expect the court to disregard the language of Penal Code section 1054.5(c), then I agree... Let's hope that the judge will turn a blind eye to the law as it was enacted by the state legislature! Lets hope that the judge, and rather than following the steps outlined in PC 1054.5(b) (same link as above) -staring with “immediate disclosure...”-, that he will skip over that as well as all other legal remedies available and instead, jump to the least reasonable and highly improbable resolution...

You can call it “excellent defense”; I'd like to refer to it as “false hope”...

You should really be advising people to stand up for their rights.

Yeah... I might give that a try sometime soon!

[EWYLTJ]

TG,

First of all, the defense I was recommending is based on failure to prosecute... not failure to provide discovery.

Second.... why don't YOU provide one reference to any law or case that says that the prosecuting attorney is relieved of ALL his prosecutorial responsibilities and not just the obligation to appear at trial.

Third, while you are at it... why don't YOU provide one reference to any law or case that says the CHP would ever have ANY obligation to respond to a discovery request.

[adam_]

My opinion is that he can send his discovery request to the CA and the DA and they will both tell him that they don't have any responsibilities for infractions. Frequently, the LA DA's office actually sends a letter stating such and they inappropriately cite case law to support this absurd notion. So, my advice would be that he properly send the discovery request to the CA and the DA. When he gets a response telling him that prosecutors don't have any responsibilities in infraction cases, he should make a motion to the court for dismissal on the grounds of lack of prosecution. He can cite People v. Carlucci where they state that a prosecuting attorney only need not appear in court, however there is no case that allows prosecutors to disregard ALL of their prosecutorial responsibilities.


That Guy, you are well aware of the prosecutorial farce that is perpetrated by DA offices all over this state and you continue to advise people to give into this myth. I don't understand why. First, it overlooks an excellent defense and second, it encourages such irresponsible behavior by prosecutors. You should really be advising people to stand up for their rights.

Far be it for me to wade in here.... I do find the whole "state can prosecute with just witnesses and an impartial judge in the room" to be a bit of a charade...

Has anyone TRIED this strategy? Be interesting to read/see how this fares in action.

A

PS Last time I had to file for records, I too went along with serving the CHP... so mea culpa, but it was many years ago and I wasn't so adventurous.... and hadn't found this site.

[EWYLTJ]

Adam,

I agree... it is a bit of a charade, but there is case law that says that a prosecutor doesn't have to be present at trial (people v. carlucci).... however, there is NOTHING that relieves a prosecutor of any other duties. Discovery is statutorily a burden of the prosecuting attorney. A witness (i.e. CHP cop) has no obligation to provide discovery... so he can provide you with inaccurate information, incomplete information or he can totally ignore you. Furthermore, the cop is merely a witness... nothing more, nothing less (people v. marcroft). A witness CANNOT prosecute!! The judge CANNOT prosecute. There MUST be a prosecuting attorney. However, the LA DA's office will send out a form letter citing people v carlucci and say that they have NO RESPONSIBILITIES towards traffic infractions. So, with that said, one would only have to present that letter in court and make a motion to dismiss due to lack of prosecution.

[DrMoMo]

I am in the same boat for this down in San Diego, CA.

I sent a motion for discovery to the D.A.'s office certified and have not heard anything back in about 2 months now. I received the certified stub saying it has been received, but no word back. Should I contact the D.A.? Contact the court?

I like where EWYLTJ was going, and I'm ballsy enough to let this rock, but I would like to get a letter like that from San Diego or at least my damn discovery.

I found a discovery template @ http://www.helpigotaticket.com/forms/disc_rlc.rtf and used that. The last paragraph has some intresting verbage. With the site's suggestion of having a third party mail and sign a document saying that the discovery request was mail, would this help?