Motion to Compel Production of Evidence in a Traffic Case

My question involves a traffic ticket from the state of: California

I was cited for 22349(a). I lost a Trial by Declaration and my Trial De Novo date was today (12/2/2016). Prior to this I had sent Informal Discovery to the District Attorney (DA) and City Attorney (CA), since I wasn't sure who had jurisdiction. I requested a list of witnesses of the prosecution, speedometer calibration and officer notes. The case was a Visual Estimate and Pace case (per officer's TBD response) The court would not let me calendar the pretrial hearing to compel discovery so I presented it at Trial. The officer showed up.

The commissioner stayed the court date and I am instructed by the court to do the following:

"Deft to serve city attorney by mail with moving papers by 12/09/16"

"Deft to send a copy of this minute order with moving papers to the city attorney per court"

"City attorney to respond to defendants informal discovery request no later than 12/29/16"

I'm not entirely clear what "moving papers" I need to file, I'm assuming that I need to serve the CA with a Notice of Motion and include a copy of the Minute Order (no problem)? Please confirm this is proper process/paperwork.

Also some tangential anecdotes that might be interesting:

- When I arrived to court, I didn't see the officer that I recognized in the officer area. I thought I was going to get off but the Judge didn't call me to bench when he called (only happened for present officers). When the judge was reviewing my discovery, he asked the officer regarding my discovery if anyone other than himself was involved. The officer kinda shrugged and said, "My partner" then the judge asked if he intends to present at trial, to which he responded "no." The judge went off and bailed the officer out by saying something like, "You mean to say you normally have a partner but he's not a party to this case?" "Yes." There's some differences between the officer present and the one I remember (appearance and voice) that I think the officer that is named on the ticket is not the one that gave me the ticket. The officer I spoke to I remember being young/Asian/glasses, this officer is older, heavyset, Hispanic and no glasses.

- The judge asked the officer if he had a copy of the calibration records of his vehicle used at the time of the stop. The officer responded that with the new vehicles CHP has (in my Area CHP has almost completely switched over to brand new Explorers), they do not have a way to reliably calibrate the speedometer. I went for a hail mary and asked the judge if the prosecution would still like to continue even though they've already admitted he can't testify to the veracity of the speedo. Officer wants to pursue. BOOOOO!

- It the judge took a 10 minute recess to investigate my arguments for discovery but ultimately agreed. He denied my motion to dismiss for lack of discovery.... even though I never made such a motion (I think he just assumed that's what I was intending).

- I was THE last case of the day and I think the court was glad as my proceeding alone took ~22 minutes.

- When I got home from court. I had a response from the City Attorney (WAY after 20 days, and postmarked and letterhead dated 11/30) saying that they have no such records from the CHP (did not mention what records specifically were not available from what I asked for), that they intend to comply with discovery but are not waiving their right to present evidence not provided in discovery (this doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO).

- The judge asked and I permitted to get a copy of the officer's notes in court (court was kind enough to have the bailiff photocopy it for me after I asked permission to snap it with my phone).

Overall the Commissioner seemed legitimately concerned that I was not given proper process and obviously made efforts to be sure I get it. However, I think the biggest value from today were the 2 admissions from the officer that I'm going to GRILL him on. However, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to ask him to confirm what he said before the judge today?

Neither the District Attorney nor the City Attorney is in a position to provide you with discovery as they do not prosecute infractions and as such, are not in possession of discovery items. Instead, the law enforcement agency that issued the citation files directly with the court and the officer alone presents the case. If you do a keyword search of the forum you will find several threads explaining the legaleze of all this. Here's what you do if you are seeking discovery on a CHP traffic citation:

Mail a copy of your citation to the CHP office it was issued out of. Clearly address the envelope to “Custodian of Records” and attach a letter indicating you are requesting informal discovery in connection with the enclosed citation. In addition to any items you feel are necessary to your defense, be sure to ask for:

1. A copy of the officer’s copy of the citation, including the back side containing any notes he may have made.

2. Copies of all other notes, reports and other documents prepared by the officer in connection with the matter.

3. If you were cited for speeding, copies of calibration records for all speed measuring devices used to determine your speed.

4. If you were cited for speeding, a copy of any traffic and engineering surveys for the highway in question (if applicable).

5. Copies of the MVARS (patrol car dash cam) video and audio recording of your stop (if one exists).

6. Copies of any personal audio recording the officer may have made during his contact with you.


Items 1 & 2 will give you an idea as to what the officer may testify to.

Items 3 will determine if the device used to determine your speed was recently calibrated.

Item 4 will probably not be applicable as most speed citations written by CHP are done so under circumstances where a survey is not required.

Items 6 & 7 are valuable because during the traffic stop, drivers tend to apologize for having committed the violation, make all sorts of incriminating statements and are sometimes rude and belligerent. They then go into court, deny having committed the violation and occasionally accuse the officer of unspeakable acts and even cast aspersions on his mother. This is when the officer whips out the MVARS video or audio recording and plays it for the court. The judge hears the driver admit the violation, threaten the officer and boast about how he will beat the ticket in court. Needless to say, any sympathy the court may have had for him goes out the window. You want to hear what you said to the officer before you risk going into court and making a fool out of yourself.

As a side note, I wouldn't worry too much about calibration. Traffic officers are trained to visually estimate speed within a couple miles an hours. The court routinely accepts theirs as expert testimony in this area and convictions have been won based on their testimony alone. Trying to play Perry Mason here isn't going to impress the judge. All he wants to know is whether or not you were speeding. The officer (an expert at estimating speed) is going to testify that you were speeding. What do you have that established he was wrong and that you weren't speeding?

Both the judge and the City attorney agreed that the City attorney is responsible for the case. There is no legal Duty for the CHP office to respond to Discovery that is the duty of the prosecuting attorney only.

Even let's say that were technically wrong. I have a judge telling me to serve the City attorney with papers and if they don't respond or respond in satisfactorily he's going to issue sanctions in my favor and naturally I'm not going to complain about that.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

Both the judge and the City attorney agreed that the City attorney is responsible for the case. There is no legal Duty for the CHP office to respond to Discovery that is the duty of the prosecuting attorney only.

---

Then they are probably the only judge and CA in the state who feel that way. Across the state, it has been the position of courts that traffic discovery goes to the issuing agency as the prosecutor/city attorney do not have any discoverable materials for traffic cases.

The City Attorney would not be involved in a CHP matter in ANY jurisdiction in CA. While they DO handle prosecutions for a few traffic matters and some misdemeanors in a small number of jurisdictions, no City Attorney handles traffic cases for the CHP.

The CVC requires the prosecuting attorney to turn over discovery that it has or reasonably should have in a proceeding. However, the CVC also mandates that traffic matters be filed directly to the court and NOT through a City Attorney or District Attorney. Therefore these offices will not be in possession of the items you seek, nor will they have any idea about the case at hand since the matters rarely ever pass through their office at all. Most informal discovery requests are passed along to the local agency as a courtesy, or, the matter is returned to the defendant's court and he is asked to request the items from the agency involved. Most agencies will comply with such requests ... some will not. The CHP is generally quite used to them, as L-1 has pointed out. And, if no ID is provided, your recourse is as you have discovered - ask the court to compel it.

I guess the question here is whether the OP really wants the discovery materials, or if he wants to claim he sought discovery and was denied as a ruse to get his ticket dismissed.

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

I guess the question here is whether the OP really wants the discovery materials, or if he wants to claim he sought discovery and was denied as a ruse to get his ticket dismissed.

---

It's a maximum speed case.

Discovery is important since I believe the officer I saw in court is NOT the one that issued the ticket (List of witnesses). The officer let it slip that he normally has a partner and again, I don't believe who showed up in court is the one that issued me the ticket or took down the statement noted on the back. So, that discovery element became MORE important after I showed up to trial. The calibration records are important since the ticket was based pace/visual estimate.

I can call in to challenge WHO did the visual estimation (if the partner, he needs to show up to prove who did the visual estimate, but he will be precluded since he wasn't/will not be named in discovery response), and the pacing I can reasonably prove to be inaccurate if the officer's statement was correct and that CHP has no way to calibrate, test or certify speedometers on the new Explorers.

CHP officers who are radar trained (which should be all of them) are also trained in visual speed estimation. Arguing speedo calibration might be a factor if we are talking +/- 2 MPH or so, but, at what speed do they claim you were traveling? If 10+ it may be a moot point and a shot in the dark.

If you were otherwise eligible for traffic school, understand that losing at trial may result in any possibility of TS being discarded by the court as is often the case. So, keep that in mind.

Humor me. List each and every item you requested as part of informal discovery.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The City Attorney would not be involved in a CHP matter in ANY jurisdiction in CA. While they DO handle prosecutions for a few traffic matters and some misdemeanors in a small number of jurisdictions, no City Attorney handles traffic cases for the CHP.

The CVC requires the prosecuting attorney to turn over discovery that it has or reasonably should have in a proceeding. However, the CVC also mandates that traffic matters be filed directly to the court and NOT through a City Attorney or District Attorney. Therefore these offices will not be in possession of the items you seek, nor will they have any idea about the case at hand since the matters rarely ever pass through their office at all. Most informal discovery requests are passed along to the local agency as a courtesy, or, the matter is returned to the defendant's court and he is asked to request the items from the agency involved. Most agencies will comply with such requests ... some will not. The CHP is generally quite used to them, as L-1 has pointed out. And, if no ID is provided, your recourse is as you have discovered - ask the court to compel it.

---

Here's the late response I got from the City Attorney.

I doubt the CA is agreeing to discovery just to be nice. The Judge put in the minute order that I am to send the City Attorney a copy of the minute order as well as moving papers. He's ordering the City Attorney to respond to my informal discovery by a specific date. Obviously this letter is non-responsive for that purpose (and late anyway), as clearly the CA would have access, or could obtain access to the ticket as well as the list of witnesses. I think they're referring to my speedometer calibration records, to which the officer has already indicated are unlikely to exist.

So, either the CA is responsible for discovery or I persuasive enough to convince the Judge and the CA that that the CA's office is responsible even though it'd be outside the law.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/gM...H=w575-h635-no

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

Humor me. List each and every item you requested as part of informal discovery.

---

Already mentioned them all.

List of witnesses, speedometer calibration record and officer notes. That's it.

The city attorney told you they have nothing ... in a form letter. They responded to your request. And, under CA law, they will not receive info from the CHP so the answer to any request for ID from them regarding CHP cites will always be the same.

The CA is not responsible for the CHP and has zero authority over them, and the CHP is not required to forward their cites to either the CA or the DA.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The city attorney told you they have nothing ... in a form letter. They responded to your request. And, under CA law, they will not receive info from the CHP so the answer to any request for ID from them regarding CHP cites will always be the same.

The CA is not responsible for the CHP and has zero authority over them, and the CHP is not required to forward their cites to either the CA or the DA.

---

The letter indicates they asked the CHP and the CHP said the records don't exist. That doesn't sound like the CHP refused to provide information to the CA as a matter of law.

I have the judge telling me to serve, under no uncertain terms, the City Attorney. Unless, you're advocating that I ignore the Judge (BTW, he made sure the clerk reported on the minutes that he is to retain PERSONAL jurisdiction over this case, so any failure on my part, or that of the CA is not a good idea) that is what I'm going to do.

The point of this thread was to see what I needed to do to serve the CA with Moving papers. Whether or not the CA is legally responsible at this point is moot. I have ORDERS to serve the CA.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/kJ...S=w477-h635-no

The question still remains - are you truly seeking discovery, or are you intentionally playing a technical game where you ask for discovery in such a a manner that you know it will not be forthcoming, just so you can claim it was denied?

You can serve the City Attorney, but it won't change anything because the City Attorney will respond the same way it has because they do not have the information. It's like asking ME for informal discovery - I don't have it. So, sure, serve them as the court suggested (which they did because the court is ordering ID from anyone that might have it). But, they do not have to provide records they do not possess and for a process they are not involved with. So, you will get the same response from them.

Hopefully the judge is ordering ID from the CHP or you may still hit a dead end unless the District Attorney steps up and contacts the CHP.

Once again I'll ask, how fast do they claim you were traveling?

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

The question still remains - are you truly seeking discovery, or are you intentionally playing a technical game where you ask for discovery in such a a manner that you know it will not be forthcoming, just so you can claim it was denied?

---

I've already explained this. I don't believe the officer that showed up at court is the one I spoke with at the scene. I intend to disprove the accuracy of the pace and I intend to attack the veracity of the visual estimate since who even wrote the ticket is questionable.

If the officer that I believe I spoke with wants to show up, he needs to be named. If he is not named, he's not to show up and the elements of the ticket are hearsay and inadmissible.

Maybe it was a trainee? Maybe the other officer didn't have his ticket book and used his partners? I don't know, but I am fairly confident the guy I spoke to at the scene as not the one in court.

If the CA doesn't want to respond to the Judge's orders and their witness and evidence gets excluded as a result, that's fine with me to. My goal is to not pay this ticket and I'm fine with a dismissal from whatever grounds it comes from.

What records, please be explicit, is this letter referring to? Is this regarding the speedo? If it is, your answer regarding that has already been answered, they don't have records of that for the new cars. This letter, however, seems to only pertain to some mysterious record that you're not spelling out. It mentions nothing and alludes to nothing regarding witnesses or officer's notes.

As to the second image that you attached, that looks like notes that you scrawled, not any order by a judge.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You can serve the City Attorney, but it won't change anything because the City Attorney will respond the same way it has because they do not have the information. It's like asking ME for informal discovery - I don't have it. So, sure, serve them as the court suggested (which they did because the court is ordering ID from anyone that might have it). But, they do not have to provide records they do not possess and for a process they are not involved with. So, you will get the same response from them.

Hopefully the judge is ordering ID from the CHP or you may still hit a dead end unless the District Attorney steps up and contacts the CHP.

Once again I'll ask, how fast do they claim you were traveling?

---

Here's part of the legal boilerplate I used to draft my discovery cover letter.

"A prosecutor has a duty to search for and disclose exculpatory evidence if the evidence is possessed by a person or agency that has been used by the prosecutor or the investigating agency to assist the prosecution or the investigating agency in its work. The important determinant is whether the person or agency has been "acting on the government's behalf" (Kyles v. Whitley, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 437 [115 S.Ct. at p. 1567]) or "assisting the government's case." (In re Brown, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 881.) – from People v. Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 264"

"Whether or not the People provide a prosecuting attorney, the citing officer who testifies as to the circumstances of the citation is a witness, no more, no less. – People v. Marcroft (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544"


"Per Government code 26500:
The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law." - There is law that provides that the City Attorney handles infractions.

Alleged speed was 80. So yes, my primary tactic on this case is to prove that the prosecution's case was improper, as a matter of procedure and law and that admitting the witness/statements, etc. is legally improper.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

What records, please be explicit, is this letter referring to? Is this regarding the speedo? If it is, your answer regarding that has already been answered, they don't have records of that for the new cars. This letter, however, seems to only pertain to some mysterious record that you're not spelling out. It mentions nothing and alludes to nothing regarding witnesses or officer's notes.

As to the second image that you attached, that looks like notes that you scrawled, not any order by a judge.

---

Bolded - I know that's why I said earlier that the CA's letter is unresponsive and vague (and meaningless as a response to discovery).

The form is for reporting of Court Minutes. He obviously had the clerk do something with the form the pre-formed lines and and fields are not designed to accommodate.

Believe what you like however as to the veracity of what I uploaded.

If you like, when the case is over PM me and I'll send you my case number, you can then do a court records request for any minute orders related to the case. They should provide this to you since court documents are a matter of public record. Then, you can prove it to yourself? Fair enough?

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

If the CA doesn't want to respond to the Judge's orders and their witness and evidence gets excluded as a result, that's fine with me to. My goal is to not pay this ticket and I'm fine with a dismissal from whatever grounds it comes from.

---

It's not the city's case! The city of San Diego has zero control over the California Highway Patrol. It's like asking San Francisco PD for a citation issued by Los Angeles PD. Even the judge knows this. So, if the CA does not provide discovery, it's not going to give you the win you want. The judge can order the CHP to provide the ID and if he does and they do not turn it over,THEN you can ask for sanctions.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

What records, please be explicit, is this letter referring to? Is this regarding the speedo? If it is, your answer regarding that has already been answered, they don't have records of that for the new cars. This letter, however, seems to only pertain to some mysterious record that you're not spelling out. It mentions nothing and alludes to nothing regarding witnesses or officer's notes.

As to the second image that you attached, that looks like notes that you scrawled, not any order by a judge.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

It's not the city's case! The city of San Diego has zero control over the California Highway Patrol. It's like asking San Francisco PD for a citation issued by Los Angeles PD. Even the judge knows this. So, if the CA does not provide discovery, it's not going to give you the win you want. The judge can order the CHP to provide the ID and if he does and they do not turn it over,THEN you can ask for sanctions.

---

The judge knows that the CA has no duty to provide me discovery, yet stayed the trial date, is ordering the CA to respond and is just wasting everyone's time for the fun of it?



I created this thread to see what moving papers to do for the CA. That's not going to happen apparently, so appreciate the debate guys but I think this topic has 0 possibility to bear anything helpful to my case.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

Here's part of the legal boilerplate I used to draft my discovery cover letter.

"A prosecutor has a duty to search for and disclose exculpatory evidence if the evidence is possessed by a person or agency that has been used by the prosecutor or the investigating agency to assist the prosecution or the investigating agency in its work. The important determinant is whether the person or agency has been "acting on the government's behalf" (Kyles v. Whitley, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 437 [115 S.Ct. at p. 1567]) or "assisting the government's case." (In re Brown, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 881.) – from People v. Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305 , 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 264"

"Whether or not the People provide a prosecuting attorney, the citing officer who testifies as to the circumstances of the citation is a witness, no more, no less. – People v. Marcroft (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 , 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 544"


"Per Government code 26500:
The district attorney is the public prosecutor, except as otherwise provided by law." - There is law that provides that the City Attorney handles infractions.

Alleged speed was 80. So yes, my primary tactic on this case is to prove that the prosecution's case was improper, as a matter of procedure and law and that admitting the witness/statements, etc. is legally improper.



Bolded - I know that's why I said earlier that the CA's letter is unresponsive and vague (and meaningless as a response to discovery).

The form is for reporting of Court Minutes. He obviously had the clerk do something with the form the pre-formed lines and and fields are not designed to accommodate.

Believe what you like however as to the veracity of what I uploaded.

If you like, when the case is over PM me and I'll send you my case number, you can then do a court records request for any minute orders related to the case. They should provide this to you since court documents are a matter of public record. Then, you can prove it to yourself? Fair enough?

---

No, the city attorney does not automatically handle infractions. You're not reading these snippets of law enough. If you can provide some law that requires the San Diego City Attorney to handle all infractions written by any and all state and federal agencies within the city limits, maybe so. But, there is not one. (Did I say I used to work there?)

And the DA or CA are to provide information that they are in possession of. Keep in mind that CA state law says citations are to be filed DIRECTLY with the court. They do not go through the CA or the DA unless these agencies have all agreed to such a process. When I was in SD County this process existed only for those offenses that could be misdemeanors. VC 22349 does not fall into that realm. And if neither are assisting with the filing or prosecution, those snippets you read are not applicable.

Remember this part of the PC 1054.1:

"... if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies ..."

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

No, the city attorney does not automatically handle infractions. You're not reading these snippets of law enough. If you can provide some law that requires the San Diego City Attorney to handle all infractions written by any and all state and federal agencies within the city limits, maybe so. But, there is not one. (Did I say I used to work there?)

And the DA or CA are to provide information that they are in possession of. Keep in mind that CA state law says citations are to be filed DIRECTLY with the court. They do not go through the CA or the DA unless these agencies have all agreed to such a process. When I was in SD County this process existed only for those offenses that could be misdemeanors. VC 22349 does not fall into that realm. And if neither are assisting with the filing or prosecution, those snippets you read are not applicable.

Remember this part of the PC 1054.1:

"... if it is in the possession of the prosecuting attorney or if the prosecuting attorney knows it to be in the possession of the investigating agencies ..."

---

Well if you're still in San Diego I invite you to my next court date and you can tell the Commissioner he's wrong and wasting everyone's time.

Well, you're right. You're not going to get what you want here if you can't be more explicit in the face of explicit questions. On the face of it the letter you received IS a response. They don't have that information and the records that you want don't exist. I asked you what records, explicitly, and you referred me to earlier in the thread. In fact, in my last post, I asked you about the speedo records and if that is what the letter referred to and you declined to answer.

cdw and others have repeatedly told you that the CA will not have these records as the CHP doesn't answer them. The prosecutors office doesn't have to do your investigation for you. Their duty is to supply you with the records that they have, not to go haring off on errands for you. If you want discovery from the CHP you'll have to pursue that on your own. If you decline to do so you could very easily find that your up that creek we all know and love.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

Well, you're right. You're not going to get what you want here if you can't be more explicit in the face of explicit questions. On the face of it the letter you received IS a response. They don't have that information and the records that you want don't exist. I asked you what records, explicitly, and you referred me to earlier in the thread. In fact, in my last post, I asked you about the speedo records and if that is what the letter referred to and you declined to answer.

cdw and others have repeatedly told you that the CA will not have these records as the CHP doesn't answer them. The prosecutors office doesn't have to do your investigation for you. Their duty is to supply you with the records that they have, not to go haring off on errands for you. If you want discovery from the CHP you'll have to pursue that on your own. If you decline to do so you could very easily find that your up that creek we all know and love.

---

The letter didn't refer to anything. Their letter was their response to my discovery and cover letter sent on Nov 3rd. THEY responded vaguely to my SPECIFIC request for discovery. Do you want to see what I sent them that they responded to? Are you going to accuse me of having drafted it right before posting?

Look, all I want to know is what I need to do for moving papers ordered by the court.

I don't care if the CA is proper or not. I have orders to serve them so I shall. Is that so hard to understand?

If you want to know how to serve your motion, hand carry it to the CA's office, ask for the subpoena clerk and present it to her in person. She will accept it and log it in.

Now, I understand the court has given you direction and you are merely attempting to comply. However, that does not preclude you from seeking discovery via other methods that usually produce actual results, so I will ask again. Are you truly seeking discovery items for use in your defense, or are just playing a game here where you go through certain motions knowing fully they will not result in success, only so you can claim discovery was denied and seek a dismissal? Is that question so hard to understand and respond to? Don't continues to be evasive or disingenuous. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

Well if you're still in San Diego I invite you to my next court date and you can tell the Commissioner he's wrong and wasting everyone's time.

---

Nope, I am not. And all because the Commissioner issued the order does not mean they have any discovery to provide.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

I don't care if the CA is proper or not. I have orders to serve them so I shall. Is that so hard to understand?

---

And no one is saying NOT to serve the order on the City Attorney. However, we ARE telling you that they will not be able to provide you with anything because they simply do not have it and are NOT part of the process. So, serve away.

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

If you want to know how to serve your motion, hand carry it to the CA's office, ask for the subpoena clerk and present it to her in person. She will accept it and log it in.

Now, I understand the court has given you direction and you are merely attempting to comply. However, that does not preclude you from seeking discovery via other methods that usually produce actual results, so I will ask again. Are you truly seeking discovery items for use in your defense, or are just playing a game here where you go through certain motions knowing fully they will not result in success, only so you can claim discovery was denied and seek a dismissal? Is that question so hard to understand and respond to? Don't continues to be evasive or disingenuous. If you don't want to answer, just say so.

---

I am to serve the CA by mail per judge.

I was inquiring about the moving papers that I am instructed to serve them with.

I'm not answering your question on my intentions for discovery again. If my explanation of why I want discovery isn't enough to tell you that I want discovery you're more dense than lead.

The moving papers they want you to serve are from U-haul. Do it by registered mail.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

The moving papers they want you to serve are from U-haul. Do it by registered mail.

---

I can tell you're being deliberately obtuse but "moving papers" is an actual legal term.

And you're being unnecessarily pedantic. Goodbye.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

And no one is saying NOT to serve the order on the City Attorney. However, we ARE telling you that they will not be able to provide you with anything because they simply do not have it and are NOT part of the process. So, serve away.

---

And that will be too bad for the Prosecution's case regardless of whether or not it's legally accurate won't it? The law provides that evidence not provided in discovery by the PROSECUTING ***ATTORNEY*** (unless bar admitted Attorneys work at the CHP records officer that prosecute traffic cases - which would be big news to me!) can be suppressed. Whether the CA has the evidence or whether or not he knows who has what evidence is immaterial to the fact that evidence not submitted to me by the office is inadmissible in court.

FWIW, the Judge explicitly said not to bother the DA. He brought this up as I presented my return receipts/proof of service for the cover letters and discovery requests I sent to both agencies (same letter, name/addresses changed) as the matter fell under the City Attorney solely. He also made no mention of any requirement on my part to pursue the CHP office for discovery.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mark47n

---

And you're being unnecessarily pedantic. Goodbye.

---

Unnecessarily Pedantic?

Now I will be pedantic. Pedantism implies a lack of practical necessity (frivolousness), unnecessary pedantism is ridiculous notion since pedantism/being pedantic is by definition unnecessary.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

I've already explained this. I don't believe the officer that showed up at court is the one I spoke with at the scene.

---

I'm still trying to figure this part out. How can you not know if the officer is the same one? Was this cite from a long, long time ago or something? If you spoke to Officer Smith at the stop and Officer Michaels shows up, it should be pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

I'm still trying to figure this part out. How can you not know if the officer is the same one? Was this cite from a long, long time ago or something? If you spoke to Officer Smith at the stop and Officer Michaels shows up, it should be pretty obvious.

---

I scanned the officer side of the room and didn't see any officer I recognized. I was the last case to be called to the stand for and by that time there was only one officer left whom I think it was the first time meeting in my life.

It's not like I asked for his name at the time of the stop. The cop I got was young and Asian and this cop was older, not Asian and heavier. So it was a surprise to me that he completely didn't look like I remember.

Maybe it was a rookie I spoke with and they were involved in a training exercise? Maybe the officer I spoke with used his partners book instead of his for whatever reason?

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

And that will be too bad for the Prosecution's case regardless of whether or not it's legally accurate won't it? The law provides that evidence not provided in discovery by the PROSECUTING ***ATTORNEY*** (unless bar admitted Attorneys work at the CHP records officer that prosecute traffic cases - which would be big news to me!) can be suppressed. Whether the CA has the evidence or whether or not he knows who has what evidence is immaterial to the fact that evidence not submitted to me by the office is inadmissible in court.

---

The law also does not require a prosecuting ATTORNEY in traffic cases since they are direct-filed with the court. The CITY ATTORNEY in San Diego does not receive or pursue infractions issued by the California Highway Patrol.

Quote:

---

FWIW, the Judge explicitly said not to bother the DA. He brought this up as I presented my return receipts/proof of service for the cover letters and discovery requests I sent to both agencies (same letter, name/addresses changed) as the matter fell under the City Attorney solely. He also made no mention of any requirement on my part to pursue the CHP office for discovery.

---

Well, perhaps the Commissioner made an error. The most common orders issued in these matters to compel discovery is a court order directing the law enforcement agency to provide the items requested, not ordering agencies without any involvement to do so.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

The law also does not require a prosecuting ATTORNEY in traffic cases since they are direct-filed with the court. The CITY ATTORNEY in San Diego does not receive or pursue infractions issued by the California Highway Patrol.


Well, perhaps the Commissioner made an error. The most common orders issued in these matters to compel discovery is a court order directing the law enforcement agency to provide the items requested, not ordering agencies without any involvement to do so.

---

CA/DA don't need to show up in traffic cases. That's fine. I agree. However, I don't see anywhere in the PC that removes the requirement that an ATTORNEY provide discovery. The attorney doesn't need to show up to court but that doesn't mean that there are no attorneys involved in traffic cases.

Where's the statutory authority for a court to compel a CHP office to provide discovery?

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

CA/DA don't need to show up in traffic cases. That's fine. I agree. However, I don't see anywhere in the PC that removes the requirement that an ATTORNEY provide discovery. The attorney doesn't need to show up to court but that doesn't mean that there are no attorneys involved in traffic cases.

Where's the statutory authority for a court to compel a CHP office to provide discovery?

---

I'm pretty sure this has been said in this thread by me already.

Yup, here it is:

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

Then they are probably the only judge and CA in the state who feel that way. Across the state, it has been the position of courts that traffic discovery goes to the issuing agency as the prosecutor/city attorney do not have any discoverable materials for traffic cases.

---

You can find it in any of the hundreds of threads on CA traffic discovery as well. Regardless of what the PC says, courts in California have operated for a looooong time on the interpretation that the CA/DA DOES NOT have to provide discovery and it should be provided by the issuing agency.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

I'm pretty sure this has been said in this thread by me already.

Yup, here it is:



You can find it in any of the hundreds of threads on CA traffic discovery as well. Regardless of what the PC says, courts in California have operated for a looooong time on the interpretation that the CA/DA DOES NOT have to provide discovery and it should be provided by the issuing agency.

---

So your argument is that there is no legal basis for this, but because it's been done for so long it's therefore legitimate?

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

CA/DA don't need to show up in traffic cases. That's fine. I agree. However, I don't see anywhere in the PC that removes the requirement that an ATTORNEY provide discovery. The attorney doesn't need to show up to court but that doesn't mean that there are no attorneys involved in traffic cases.

---

Well, there is not. CVC 40506 states, "the officer shall, as soon as practicable, file a copy of the notice with the magistrate or before a person authorized by the magistrate or judge to receive a deposit of bail specified therein, and a copy with the commissioner, chief of police, sheriff or other superior officer of the arresting officer." Thus, the NTA is filed directly with the court and never passes through ANY prosecuting office. Heck, I used to be the guy that hand carried these to the county court where I worked. Only traffic misdemeanors would go through the DA's office, and if they chose not to pursue them as misdemeanors, they'd send them to the court as infractions (usually unlicensed or suspended driver offenses, false registration, cites, etc.). Further, pursuant to the Penal Code, the NTA itself serves as the complaint, so the DA or CA never have to be involved.

The Commissioner should have had you serve the DA with the order to compel because if anyone could obtain the info from the CHP it would be the County's District Attorney, NOT the CITY ATTORNEY. Who knows? Maybe the CA will be generous and will contact the CHP and will act as the go between all the same.

Of course, you can always ask the CHP for the items you want by providing them with an ID request. But, if your plan is to try and get around the issue by seeking a violation of ID, then you won't do that.

Quote:

---

Where's the statutory authority for a court to compel a CHP office to provide discovery?

---

There is none under PC 1054 et seq. However, defying an order from the court to provide information can be a violation of the law under the Penal Code. In this case, it would likely include sanctions such as prohibiting evidence.

Yes, you will find arguments all over the internet saying that the DA (or even a CA) are responsible for discovery ... you will similarly find that DA's offices throughout the state cite law that says they are not required to provide this discovery since the section refers to information that they have in their possession or they know to be in the possession of a law enforcement agency. But, as the CVC requires filing in court and NOT with any prosecuting attorney's office, they tend to argue that they neither possess nor have any info on who might possess such items. As a matter of courtesy, prosecuting attorneys will notify the law enforcement agency's involved and ask them to provide the info.

If you truly want the discovery items, ask the CHP. If you want to continue playing the game, I guess you'll keep playing. I cannot say why the Commissioner is ordering discovery through the City Attorney, but, they certainly won't have the info ... though, as I mentioned, they may choose to facilitate the info all the same.

Quote:

---

Quoting Undiscovered

---

So your argument is that there is no legal basis for this, but because it's been done for so long it's therefore legitimate?

---

It's legitimate in that it is the accepted practice of most traffic courts in the state of CA. Until such time as the courts are told to handle it otherwise, it will continue. If that were to happen, you would likely see a change in the PC to allow the current practice as it is simply a more expedient process.

I think the OP keeps coming back because he enjoys being enraged by the fact that he isn't getting answers that agree with him.

Perhaps its best that we no longer feed the troll.

Quote:

---

Quoting L-1

---

I think the OP keeps coming back because he enjoys being enraged by the fact that he isn't getting answers that agree with him.

Perhaps its best that we no longer feed the troll.

---

No, I'm annoyed that everyone wants to keep reiterating that the CA isn't responsible when the Judge says so, the CA's late response implies so and I have orders to serve the CA. Whether or not this is proper is not even relevant anymore.

I asked about moving papers and if said moving papers were a notice of motion. I answered the question myself with the help of the Nolo Book "Fight Your Ticket and Win in California"

I'm serving the CA with "NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY; FOR EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR DISCLOSURE AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; DECLARATION; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES" including a copy of the Judge's minute orders and another copy of my informal discovery request.

So, I'm done with the original point of this thread. Academic debate is the only value left here.