Well isn't this some BS re 21956 VC

[NuBoot1035]

Don't know why this is the first I've ever heard of this, but looks like BS to me.

People v. Cox (2008)168 Cal.App.4th 702 , -- Cal.Rptr.3d

http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/86226

Says 21956 doesn't apply to residential or business districts.

Have had plenty of good stops using this section with no challenges.

Apparently LAPD though has had some cases where the section was ruled as not applicable.

[Chasingthedream]

Don't know why this is the first I've ever heard of this, but looks like BS to me.

People v. Cox (2008)168 Cal.App.4th 702 , -- Cal.Rptr.3d

http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/86226

Says 21956 doesn't apply to residential or business districts.

Have had plenty of good stops using this section with no challenges.

Apparently LAPD though has had some cases where the section was ruled as not applicable.

Well that was a fascinating link you posted!!! I know you think it's BS, but if the person freaks out and bails, at least there is cause that that will be viewed as a separate incident and thus reduce "the taint" of your original PC, if that doesn't stick.

The more I learn, the more I realize the law is just one big game, and you must know the rules, which change all the time!

[CAprotectNserve]

The more I learn, the more I realize the law is just one big game, and you must know the rules, which change all the time!

That's funny. True, but funny.

It's likely there would/will/has been plenty more w/out challenge. I'm sure SacPD has a different approach in place now.

In this case, the exclusionary rule didn't apply to the resisting charge. Yet, should there have been any narcotics or weapons found on Cox the potential charges stemming from such would have fallen under the exclusionary rule. That's the troubling possibility that messes with a good guy's BS alarm. Not that Cox was necessarily a bad guy for walking in the street.... definitely an asshat for what followed initial contact.

[moparfan]

Well that was a fascinating link you posted!!! I know you think it's BS, but if the person freaks out and bails, at least there is cause that that will be viewed as a separate incident and thus reduce "the taint" of your original PC, if that doesn't stick.

The more I learn, the more I realize the law is just one big game, and you must know the rules, which change all the time!

if the pc you have to stop someone is found to be invalid or illegal than what ever is found on the person is thrown out the window unless you can prove a second pc. for example you stop a car with a burnt out light and determine the drive has no license. and you cite for only the no license then the driver has grounds to get the ticket thrown out the window because you didn't cite for your original PC to stop the car. Because how did you know the driver was unlicensed if you had not pulled him over for the BO light.

that is why LEO's must understand the laws we are to enforce and learn the advantages of see more than one violation. Because if the defense throws out one violation than you have at least a 2nd 3rd or even 4th to fall back.

[mdrdep]

Doesn't seem to mix with 21961 CVC

"21961.

This chapter does not prevent local authorities from adopting ordinances prohibiting pedestrians from crossing roadways at other than crosswalks."

[NuBoot1035]

Mdrdep I was thinking the same thing. I think they failed to argue that point at the time.

[CAprotectNserve]

Don't forget to consider the VC, or any state law, is a floor, not a ceiling.
Moving violations are violating the VC. Parking is violating the municipal code.

An ordinance is also a legislative power granted by the State Constitution. Article XI, Section 7 says “a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws"

The State Constitution expressly gives the state law precedence over the local ordinance.

So Sacramento City Code section 10.20.040 provides: "Where sidewalks are provided, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway."....

The ruling in this case determined that 21956, subdivision (a) preempts Sacramento City Code section 10.20.040..... AND OLDER case law, McGough v. Hendrickson (1943) 58 Cal.App.2d 60, 63, the court noted that it was well settled law that "'pedestrians have a right to travel anywhere upon a public highway in a residence district.'

Also, don't forget VC 21954...
(a) allows pedestrians to walk on public roadways as long as they yield to vehicular traffic: 'Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard."

Cox was cited for 21956, not the local code section 10.20.040, because state law preempts local.


At least that's my "more than a mechanic, less than an attorney" interpretation of why 21961 does not apply or override.

[L-1]

As long as your coming up with decisions that impair your ability to do your job, I came across this one the other day from 2007 and was surprised that a lot of my guys were unaware of it.

People vs. Landis

http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/85052

[NuBoot1035]

As long as your coming up with decisions that impair your ability to do your job, I came across this one the other day from 2007 and was surprised that a lot of my guys were unaware of it.

People vs. Landis

http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/85052

See I just don't get it. Years of Wall stops on the freeways and plenty of other arrests stemming from traffic stops and no 1538.5 motions have ever been brought up with this type case in mind.

[L-1]

See I just don't get it. Years of Wall stops on the freeways and plenty of other arrests stemming from traffic stops and no 1538.5 motions have ever been brought up with this type case in mind.

For some reason, no one seems to be aware of it.

They're having you do wall stops on the freeway instead of CHP? Goodness, what is the world coming to?

[NuBoot1035]

For some reason, no one seems to be aware of it.

They're having you do wall stops on the freeway instead of CHP? Goodness, what is the world coming to?

Usually our k-9 meeting up with someone we have on Impact or ICE somewhere on the FWY.

I doubt our DDA's are better than anyone else's but we've been doing it that way since I started (way after 2007). Not to mention the numerous dope arrest based off T-stops that we've made off equipment violations in LASO territory.

[NuBoot1035]

I dunno I guess the work around would be that during that stop you develop R.S. crime is afoot and under 837 you affect an arrest. The case did say he could call an officer from said jurisdiction to cite. Implied within that seems that the stop is lawful just not the end result (cite).

[mdrdep]

People v. Landis is in conflict with other case law. My understanding was that it was an unpublished (non-binding) opinion.

[NuBoot1035]

People v. Landis is in conflict with other case law. My understanding was that it was an unpublished (non-binding) opinion.

Mdrdep can you hook it up with that other case?

Also I've heard or read what you're describing. That non published cases are not binding and simply opinions.

[CAprotectNserve]

non published cases are not binding and simply opinions.

Technically, all are "opinions" but an unpublished opinion has no precedential value. If the law is clearly defined, a conflict will likely go unpublished. A published case is supposed to make new law or modify the interpretation of such to something improved.

Circling back to mopar's point..... cite what you can cite just in case.

Regarding People v Landis.... and not to MMQB, but contacting the local jurisdiction in this particular incident is professional courtesy.