My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA
I live out of state in AZ. but was pulled over for no license plate light(no one really knows if that true) in CA. no mention of the traffic stop any where. Was arrested for being under the influence but wasn't. Released 6 hours later, they impounded the car that was borrowed and found a billy club under drivers seat, (owning it is legal in AZ) but found no contraband, no drugs, nothing else. No inventory list incident to arrest, nothing to have suspected there was a crime being committed, nor did they notify the owner that the car was impounded. I then appeared as required at scheduled date for arraignment (68 days) post arrest per the written promise to appear (not a DUI). Was told that no citation had yet been filed, but then ten days later new charges came in the mail. Although I went to the first promise to appear for arraignment (200 miles away) I had the clerk sign the citation anyway, showing I was there.
The new charges were for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs (only because I know now)that I had mistakenly, told the officer,I had one beer about 12 hours prior to driving. I have a prescription for the drugs; but hadn't taken any for several hours prior to driving. I was not charged initially for anything that had to do with my ability to drive.
I filed a motion to dismiss in objection to the evidence for lack of probable cause and asked for disclosure of all the reports and results from the State. However, they sent my motions back along with a form for a request to be placed on calendar to hold a hearing. Simultaneously, I couldn't make the new arraignment date, before I could send the returned motion back requesting the hearing. OF COURSE, the state now knows my defense giving them the advantage. I did contact the court to see about getting a continuance or video conference arraignment, but they said "no we will issue a warrant", so they did. Now to request a hearing I'm afraid they will arrest me on the spot.
I then got a letter from DMV stating my license was being suspended but only for the FTA . I haven't even been arraigned on anything yet, much less convicted,
The choice to be brought before a magistrate while in jail would have been great, but I wasn't able to get the cop to agree.
Doesn't that constitute a violation of right to a speedy trial? since it could be considered as an implied waiver? but it wasn't.
Now my case is prejudiced with a FTA and suspended license, Ex post facto?
13106. (a) When the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle is suspended or revoked, the department shall notify the person by first-class mail, of the action taken and of the effective date thereof, except for those persons personally given notice by the department or a court, by a peace officer pursuant to Section 13388 or 13382, or otherwise pursuant to this code. It shall be a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that a person has knowledge of the suspension or revocation if notice has been sent by first-class mail by the department pursuant to this section to the most recent address reported to the department pursuant to
Section 12800 or 14600, or any more recent address on file if reported by the person, a court, or a law enforcement agency, and the notice has not been returned to the department as undelivered or unclaimed. It is the responsibility of every holder of a driver's license to report changes of address to the department pursuant to Section 14600.
how can the DMV suspend my license on FTA? isn't that considered ex post fact o since I haven't been convicted and the law clearly states such action commences after conviction? and those rights to be protected and secure in my houses because now I have to notify "THE DEPT" of any change in address EVEN IN my own state. Although, I can only get one state to issue me a drivers license, they can still take away that right to a necessary privilege thus affecting my life, making it a crime of consequence in my own state, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, OR EVER GETTING CONVICTED IN ANY ANOTHER STATE BY A COURT OF LAW? WHAT? ALLEGED ??
Because I live out of state I would have chosen to be arraigned when arrested.
I was also wondering if it sounds like the CA law Penal Code 781, 782 and 795 applies to a jurisdiction issues where it states: if a crime allegedly occurred in two different county's (as in crossing into out of or through it) :
“…[I] s in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which: First, any act is done towards the commission of the offense; or, Second, the offender passed, whether into, out of, or through it, to commit the offense; or, Third, the offender is arrested.”
if it might allow for extenuating circumstance as in requesting a video arraignment since I'm out of state ? having appeared the first time?
and last question: when I did show up as required and it was they who failed to prosecute after commencing prosecution after arrest, over 70 days before issuing new charges that are clearly stemming from the same event, isn't that double jeopardy?

