ExpertLaw.com Forums

California Traffic Court Discovery

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
  • 07-19-2009, 06:08 PM
    donselma
    California Traffic Court Discovery
    My question involves traffic court in the State of California:

    Hey guys, following the procedures here, I wrote an discovery request to my DA. I got a letter back saying, in effect, that the DA is not prosecuting the case and that I should contact the law enforcement agency directly for any information I want. The specific languague was:

    Direct citations issued by law enforcement agencies are not filed by the Riverside County District Attorney's office and are not in possession of the Riverside County District Attorney's office . . . Customarily, the items relevant to your citation are brought to court by the citing officer. Should you need to inspect those documents prior to the date of the trial, contact the law enforcement agency directly.

    Then they tell me to write the CHP Discovery Clerk (which I'm sure is bs) and give me the address for the local CHP office.

    What should my next step be? Write the CHP directly or write a reply to the DA's office telling them that according to Cal Gov. Code 26500 the are the prosecuting attorney of record (please help with that--I've read all the discussion on the board, not sure who's right there) and cite People v. Marcroft that the officer is a witness, nothing more, nothing less? I sort of don't what the discovery to actually happen because I was hoping to get any evidence thrown out because I'm assuming they won't follow up with discovery. That's why I'm a little reluctant to write the law enforcement agency, because what if they follow through.

    Also, is it appropriate to ask that the officer not be allowed to testify if discovery is not followed through with, or would no judge in their right mind grant that?
  • 07-19-2009, 06:36 PM
    That Guy
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    I've read all the discussion on the board, not sure who's right there

    Nobody's right... Not even the DA... Different courts will handle these matters differently.

    What were you cited with and what did you request via discovery?
  • 07-20-2009, 02:07 PM
    donselma
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Citing for crossing the gore point at a interstate off-ramp. Requested the basics:

    (a) Defendant’s statements at time of citation, including those recorded through electronic means;

    (b) The names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses who will testify at trial.

    (c) All relevant statements of known witnesses, including citing officer, whether written or recorded through electronic means, including but not limited to any diagrams or drawings. Request is specifically made for copy of any video recording, or if unavailable, sound recording and transcript of any conversation recorded and a photocopy of the reverse side of the citing officer’s copy of the Notice to Appear, if any notations have been made;

    (d) All notes, records, and log files made by citing officer in regards to the issuance of Citation No. 87017KW;

    (e) A listing of traffic tickets issued by citing officer for the month of May 2009, to include: date and time issued, alleged violation, and disposition (if determined);

    (f) Any of the officer's personnel records: specifically any complaints of misconduct.
  • 07-20-2009, 04:13 PM
    That Guy
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    Citing for crossing the gore point at a interstate off-ramp.

    What CVC Section (Number)?

    As for the rest of your post.... here are my "personal views".... (others may disagree):
    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (a) Defendant’s statements at time of citation, including those recorded through electronic means;

    You don't remember what you said? Or are you trying to get that excluded if it is not provided to you through discovery? Did you incriminate yourself that bad?

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (b) The names and addresses of all prosecution witnesses who will testify at trial.

    Usually that is limited to the citing officer... But a legitimate discovery request nevertheless.
    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (c) All relevant statements of known witnesses, including citing officer, whether written or recorded through electronic means, including but not limited to any diagrams or drawings. Request is specifically made for copy of any video recording, or if unavailable, sound recording and transcript of any conversation recorded and a photocopy of the reverse side of the citing officer’s copy of the Notice to Appear, if any notations have been made;

    Typically, that is limited to the officer's copy of the citation and the notes he made on the back of it. If you don't get that through discovery, and if you were to go to court with a motion to compel, I have seen and heard of a few instances where the judge will get you a copy of that from your court file.

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (d) All notes, records, and log files made by citing officer in regards to the issuance of Citation No. 87017KW;

    See above... Anything above and beyond that (anything related to departmental procedures) will not be used against you in your case and therefore, you're unlikely to get that.

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (e) A listing of traffic tickets issued by citing officer for the month of May 2009, to include: date and time issued, alleged violation, and disposition (if determined);

    And the point behind this item is??? I hope you're not going to claim that the officer was meeting a quota!

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    (f) Any of the officer's personnel records: specifically any complaints of misconduct.

    You're within your rights to request, review and question the officer about that. You'd be hard pressed in using any of that information to suggest that the officer's complaint record, contributed in any way to him citing you for the violation you allegedly committed. My pooint is if the officer has such a tarnished complaint record, then he won't be issuing citations, he would either be sitting at a desk somewhere or he would have had to give up his badge long before he cited you.

    Basically, and although you are requesting items that you can reasonably argue that you are entitled to via discovery, the DA's anticipated non-compliance will, at best, lead to the exclusions of those items (which were not provided to you) from the evidence against you. If my guess pans out and you get a copy of the officer's notes (whether through the DA, through the court or through the CHP), the rest of the items, and even if they are excluded will not win you the case. The officer will still testify according to his notes, the citation itself could not be excluded because you received and signed a copy of it at the time of the stop....

    All that work... then what?
  • 07-21-2009, 12:15 AM
    donselma
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Good point, I was starting to think the same thing. I don't have the actually violation citation handy, but if it might help you make anymore insightful comments, I could definetly look it up. I looked up the text, and it was just basically, something about illegally crossing over lane markings or something like that.

    Agree with most everything you said. Just to give an example, I only asked for the officer's logs for the month because the template I used suggested it; as a newbie, I figure I would just differ to the template even though I knew it would be worthless since I'm not making a quota defense (which I hear is hopeless). I guess the only thing would be the back of the ticket then. Does seem a lot of work for next to nothing.

    About point one, one statement I made that I'm worried he will use against me is that he asked me if I knew I should have exited. I answered yes primarily because I wanted to be agreeable and because I took "should" in a "would have been a good idea" sense, not a legal sense of law-breaking. Now that I'm learning about how officers think, I can see I probably condemned myself to the ticket with that answer since I think otherwise he wouldn't have felt confident enough to write me the ticket since it was night and he was easily 500 ft. behind me (which will be my main argument). When he did inform me he was giving me a ticket for crossing the gore point, I did emphatically insist that I crossed before the gore point when the lines were broken, but I'm afraid the officer will mention my earlier response in court as an admission of guilt, which I didn't intend it to be. Thanks for the good advice.

    For any posters, please nothing telling me how stupid I was to say that or how hopeless my case is now, as destroying the confidence of something who's never stepped in court before will hurt and not help the cause. Only constructive feedback about what can be done with things as they stand now, or perhaps to stay on topic, with any discovery request. Sorry about the disclaimer, but lawyers as as whole aren't known for their tact (sorry, guess a case of a few bad apples spoiling the bunch).

    I think "That Guy" is right, though--discovery's probably not worth the trouble.

    ps If I don't request discovery, am I still entitle to see his notes in court? I've heard I would be if he uses them in his testimony.
  • 07-21-2009, 02:17 AM
    That Guy
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    Agree with most everything you said. Just to give an example, I only asked for the officer's logs for the month because the template I used suggested it; as a newbie, I figure I would just differ to the template even though I knew it would be worthless since I'm not making a quota defense (which I hear is hopeless).

    Not only is it hopeless, but (for future reference) “quotas” are illegal in California...

    41602. No state or local agency employing peace officers or parking enforcement employees engaged in the enforcement of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code, may establish any policy requiring any peace officer or parking enforcement employees to meet an arrest quota.

    41603. No state or local agency employing peace officers or parking enforcement employees engaged in the enforcement of this code shall use the number of arrests or citations issued by a peace officer or parking enforcement employees as the sole criterion for promotion, demotion, dismissal, or the earning of any benefit provided by the agency. Those arrests or citations, and their ultimate dispositions, may only be considered in evaluating the overall performance of a peace officer or parking enforcement employees. An evaluation may include, but shall not be limited to, criteria such as attendance, punctuality, work safety, complaints by citizens, commendations, demeanor, formal training, and professional judgment.


    So while the number of citations that an officer writes during a certain period of time might come into play as part of his performance review, to argue that he/she starts his/her shift by having to write a certain number of citations is an notion that might tend to upset judges if it is brought up by you in court.

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    About point one, one statement I made that I'm worried he will use against me is that he asked me if I knew I should have exited. I answered yes primarily because I wanted to be agreeable and because I took "should" in a "would have been a good idea" sense, not a legal sense of law-breaking. Now that I'm learning about how officers think, I can see I probably condemned myself to the ticket with that answer since I think otherwise he wouldn't have felt confident enough to write me the ticket since it was night and he was easily 500 ft. behind me (which will be my main argument). When he did inform me he was giving me a ticket for crossing the gore point, I did emphatically insist that I crossed before the gore point when the lines were broken, but I'm afraid the officer will mention my earlier response in court as an admission of guilt, which I didn't intend it to be. Thanks for the good advice.
    …...
    ps If I don't request discovery, am I still entitle to see his notes in court? I've heard I would be if he uses them in his testimony.

    I would still follow through with the discovery request and even if it only gets you a copy of the officer's notes. Here's why; an officer, and by the time the court date rolls around, will probably not remember anything about your particular incident. So he will be reviewing his notes (from the back of his copy of the citation). If you are concerned about statements that you made at the time of the stop, then the best way to find out if the officer will mention them in court is to get a copy of his notes. If he made any notes about what was discussed at the time, then, yeah, he's probably going to mention them. If his notes show nothing to the effect, then chances are he won't.

    With that being said, you want to know whether he will mention that before your court date; as that will at least give you the opportunity to try and articulate a response to his statements. Simply waiting until the actual court date might not work to your best advantage.

    Good luck and keep us posted.
  • 07-21-2009, 05:27 PM
    EWYLTJ
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    While the DA says "custumarily" discovery requests should go to the ticket issuing agency, "statutorily" he is required to provide it.

    You should send a motion to compel into the court. Attach the letter to the motion. Make the point that the Penal Code is clear as to who is required to provide discovery. If you send your discovery request to the police, they are under NO statutory obligation to provide anything. Therefore, you could be wrongfully jeopardizing your rights to discovery based on the recommendations of the DA. This whole act is improper and contrary to law. You can also point out that the DA does have the option of not proceding with prosecution and that his refusal to meet his statutory obligations should be seen as exercising such an option.
  • 07-21-2009, 11:36 PM
    donselma
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Thanks, guys, for the encouragement and really helpful responses. Honored two of the "heavyweights" around here took time to read and respond to my queries. Another question (please let me know if I should make this a separate post):

    The officer was clearly not at 100%. Here's what I mean: For hair, he wrote "BLU" just as he had for eye color (which he did get correct); second, he reached into my glove compartment without asking permission or anything and just pulled out the first registration he came across, which happened to expire in 2004; this registration (as does the current one) properly lists my mom and dad as the owners--on the ticket, he put the vehicle as registered in my name; finally, when I asked him if I was waiving any rights by signing the ticket, he simply replied--in his best Vin Diesel (hope I got that right, not much of a Hollywood fan!) bad-ass tone--"You have no rights" and shoved the ticket back in my face. Is there any way I could leverage any of this, especially the neglect with the registration and listing my hair as blue?

    And thanks, guys. I'll make the discovery request as "That Guy" recommends, first to CHP, then if needed, a follow-up request to the DA as Jim suggests . . .

    ps Will post new thread for help with my defense. If the screen will let me, I'll even upload pictures, but I'm going to argue (and try to show with the pictures) that there's no way he could have distinguished the lane marker from the gore point from where he was.

    Jim,

    Based on your previous posts, I was actually seriously considering raising that technicality when I was thinking about it last Thursday and Friday. Have you had any success with it? I guess it's worth a try. Worse they can do is force me to stand trial. But doesn't it say specifically in the CPC (in the discovery section, 10054 or whatever is) that dismissal of the case for lack of discovery is rarely an appropriate remedy? . . .
  • 07-27-2009, 08:59 PM
    Kron
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Quote:

    Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    While the DA says "custumarily" discovery requests should go to the ticket issuing agency, "statutorily" he is required to provide it.

    The penal code states: "1054.1. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information,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: "

    Who is the prosecuting attorney in a case of a ticket issued by LAPD? In my experience, it's the judge, the cop, and you. No prosecutor present.
  • 07-27-2009, 10:51 PM
    EWYLTJ
    Re: California Traffic Court Discovery
    Quote:

    Quoting Kron
    View Post
    The penal code states: "1054.1. The prosecuting attorney shall disclose to the defendant or his or her attorney all of the following materials and information,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: "

    Who is the prosecuting attorney in a case of a ticket issued by LAPD? In my experience, it's the judge, the cop, and you. No prosecutor present.

    There are a few case law examples that simply say that the absence of a prosecutor from an infraction trial does not create a denial of due process for the defendant. None of these cases ever relieve the prosecuting attorney of his prosecutorial obligations and responsibilities. The judge cannot be a prosecutor, he is a member of the judiciary... and prosecution is an executive act. The cop can't do it as he has not passed the bar AND he is at trial as a witness, nothing more, nothing less.

    If the prosecution refuses to meet its statuory obligatioins, one can only assume that it is because he has elected not to prosecute the case! What other explanation could there be?

    Quote:

    Quoting donselma
    View Post
    Jim,

    Based on your previous posts, I was actually seriously considering raising that technicality when I was thinking about it last Thursday and Friday. Have you had any success with it? I guess it's worth a try. Worse they can do is force me to stand trial. But doesn't it say specifically in the CPC (in the discovery section, 10054 or whatever is) that dismissal of the case for lack of discovery is rarely an appropriate remedy? . . .

    What technicallity??? It is black letter law that describes the prosecutor's responsibilities.

    There is a trap here. The prosecution wants you to believe that he has no responsibilities here. However, the truth is that the police actually have no responsibilities when it comes to discovery. That's why (as seen in a different thread right now) cops can pick and choose which discovery items they will provide and simply not give you the most important exculpatory evidence they have. So, if you play the pretend game with them and act like the prosecution has no statutory obligation, then you give up your rights to that discovery.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved