ExpertLaw.com Forums

Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
  • 12-17-2014, 08:27 PM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court
    Quote:

    Quoting Jim_bo
    View Post
    I’m having a hard time understanding how I may have “insulted” Carl.

    Alas, I can't help you if you haven't read the posts, or choose not to understand them.
    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    The DA is technically the prosecutor of all public offences however, since he/she is no longer required to be present in court for infraction prosecution he may not have knowledge of what is available for discovery. He/she can't provide what they don't know exists.

    That's not actually the issue. Materials in the possession of the police that underlie a case for which the prosecutor is responsible are discoverable in a criminal case, even if the prosecutor chooses not to ask the police for copies.

    The issue is whether, having chosen not to send a prosecutor to court for a ticket, the prosecutor's office can delegate the duty to accept and respond to discovery requests to the police agency. It's a long-standing practice and, to date, no defendant has successfully appealed the practice. People can complain until they're blue in the face that they don't personally believe that the practice is proper, but unless and until they can convince a court to accept that position it's just hot air.
  • 12-18-2014, 05:45 AM
    donzoh1
    Re: Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court
    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Alas, I can't help you if you haven't read the posts, or choose not to understand them.

    That's not actually the issue. Materials in the possession of the police that underlie a case for which the prosecutor is responsible are discoverable in a criminal case, even if the prosecutor chooses not to ask the police for copies.

    The issue is whether, having chosen not to send a prosecutor to court for a ticket, the prosecutor's office can delegate the duty to accept and respond to discovery requests to the police agency. It's a long-standing practice and, to date, no defendant has successfully appealed the practice. People can complain until they're blue in the face that they don't personally believe that the practice is proper, but unless and until they can convince a court to accept that position it's just hot air.

    There is no provision I know of in California law that allows the DA to delegate any such responsibility to a Law Enforcement Agency. It may be that California Courts have invented this authority for the benefit of such an agency, but I'm not sure what case would contain such an invention.

    Here's a question for you: Imagine you've submitted a discovery request to a Law Enforcement Agency and you complain at trial the agency did not respond. The judge says, "Where is the statutory obligation for a Law Enforcement Agency to respond to your request?" I'm listening. Case Law? Statute?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    These are not the questions that you asked me nor did I respond to them specifically. But I will give you a very simple answer.

    The DA is technically the prosecutor of all public offences however, since he/she is no longer required to be present in court for infraction prosecution he may not have knowledge of what is available for discovery. He/she can't provide what they don't know exists.



    Do you see anything in the code that requires the DA to investigate whether or not there is anything to discover?

    They don't need to investigate anything. It would be a simple matter for the DA to forward all such requests to the agencies in their jurisdiction. Alternatively, the State Legislature could fix it by requiring Defendants to send copies of discovery requests to a Law Enforcement Agency and requiring Law Enforcement Agencies to respond to such requests. At this point, there are no such requirements.

    A discovery request, under these circumstances, is better made to the police department that issued the ticket. If you check out many municipal and city court sites you will find that discovery forms are addressed to the police and not the court or the DA.

    For example:

    http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/SiteColle...ry_Request.pdf

    A local jurisdiction can make up any form they want for defendants. Such a form still does not result in a requirement for the agency receiving the form to respond. Furthermore, the defendant has no legal requirement to use such a form and may not know that such a form even exists. If the DA has developed a form and makes the defendant aware of such, that would be different.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    Alas, I can't help you if you haven't read the posts, or choose not to understand them.

    That's not actually the issue. Materials in the possession of the police that underlie a case for which the prosecutor is responsible are discoverable in a criminal case, even if the prosecutor chooses not to ask the police for copies.

    Where is the statutory requirement for the police to convey such materials to the defendant after a request by the defendant?

    The issue is whether, having chosen not to send a prosecutor to court for a ticket, the prosecutor's office can delegate the duty to accept and respond to discovery requests to the police agency. It's a long-standing practice and, to date, no defendant has successfully appealed the practice. People can complain until they're blue in the face that they don't personally believe that the practice is proper, but unless and until they can convince a court to accept that position it's just hot air.

    As previously pointed out, the OP in this case did exactly that.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote:

    Quoting budwad
    View Post
    What you are missing in the case is a very relevant discussion of why the Court allows infractions (not criminal cases) to be tried without the prosecutor present. The defendant (who appears mostly likely Pro Se) does not have the prosecutor as his adversary. That actually give the defendant an advantage.

    When did you learn that an infraction is not a criminal case in California?

    The prosecutor need not be present at trial in order to execute the other requirements (i.e. discovery) of his office regarding a particular case.
  • 12-18-2014, 06:08 AM
    Jim_bo
    Re: Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court
    When presented with absolutely clear case law and statutory law, some people will continue to argue that which they WANT to believe. There's no winning an argument against someone who is emotional vice rational.
  • 12-18-2014, 08:13 AM
    Mr. Knowitall
    Re: Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court
    It would be helpful if you would read my posts before you spout off.
    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    The issue is whether, having chosen not to send a prosecutor to court for a ticket, the prosecutor's office can delegate the duty to accept and respond to discovery requests to the police agency. It's a long-standing practice and, to date, no defendant has successfully appealed the practice. People can complain until they're blue in the face that they don't personally believe that the practice is proper, but unless and until they can convince a court to accept that position it's just hot air.

    If you want to try to make your case, you do so the next time you get a ticket. For now, as you've been repeatedly told, courts accept the current practice under current law.
  • 12-18-2014, 08:32 AM
    budwad
    Re: Filing a Motion to Suppress in Traffic Court
    Quote:

    Quoting Jim_bo
    View Post
    When presented with absolutely clear case law and statutory law, some people will continue to argue that which they WANT to believe. There's no winning an argument against someone who is emotional vice rational.

    Truer words have never been spoken. Can you say Psychological projection or maybe Cognitive dissonance?

    You have been relegated to that of troll. Good bye.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved