The organic law is the constitution of government, and is altogether written.
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Sec. 1897

“The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”.
Seth Waxman, Solicitor General
U.S. Department of Justice
BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, January 12, 2000
Supreme Court of the United States

  Title 18, United States Code, Sec. 31
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES
Sec. 31. Definitions
    When used in this chapter the term -

''Motor vehicle'' means every description of carriage or other  contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo;

  California Vehicle Code 15210 (p) (7)  In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply.

    What a state Citizen's car looks like.

To the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.
Evidence Code Sec. 940.

DID YOU GET A "TICKET"?
YOU WERE "ARRESTED" - NOT "DETAINED"  
WANT THE PROOF?     CLICK HERE

EASYRIDERS FREEDOM  F.I.G.H.T.  v  HANNIGAN

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
(When the RED light is activated on a cop car, you're UNDER ARREST!)



VEHICLE CODE INFRACTIONS
ARE NOT A
CRIME OR PUBLIC OFFENSE

Are VEHICLE CODE "INFRACTIONS" Civil or Criminal in nature?

Oregon Court of Appeals
Holds That "traffic matters" are Civil!

US Supreme Court Holds That
"Traffic Infractions" Are  NONcriminal

WELSH v. WISCONSIN, 466 U.S. 740 (1984)

California Supreme Court Holds
That Infractions Are NONcriminal

Since 1992, the Vehicle Code has treated most parking violation notices as noncriminal matters, subject to civil penalties which are assessed, collected, and retained by the issuing jurisdictions (i.e., issuing agencies) themselves, pursuant to specified administrative procedures. The [17 Cal.4th 173] judicial system is involved only when a violation notice is appealed beyond the administrative level, or when administrative means of collecting delinquent penalties have failed.
Lockheed Information Management Services Co. v. City of Inglewood (1998) 17 Cal.4th 170

The Court Of Appeal Of The State Of California
Holds That Infractions Are NOT CRIMES

“...infractions are not crimes...(People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636].) fn. 1 [1b] Proceedings on infractions are not attended by the same constitutional safeguards as those attending felony or misdemeanor prosecutions. The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial of infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale the Legislature did not intend to classify infractions as crimes. (See People v. Oppenheimer (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4 [116 Cal.Rptr. 795] and People v. Battle, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1.)
People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 935, 235 Cal.Rptr. 694
[No. D005040. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. March 27, 1987.]

The Judicial Council Of The State Of California SPONSORED Legislation Making Minor Traffic Violations NONcriminal INFRACTIONS.  Go here and scroll down to page 6:  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/ar2001-1.pdf

The Judicial Council tells us that police make ARRESTS - NOT DETENTIONS - when they pull someone over for an INFRACTION.     NOTICE TO APPEAR AND RELATED FORMS

WEST’S CALIFORNIA DIGEST

Vol. 14B

CRIMINAL LAW §§1 - 303
p. 77

I.  NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME AND DEFENSES IN GENERAL.

1. Nature of crime in general.

Cal.App. 1914.   In View of Code Civ. Proc. § 24, declaring actions to be two kinds, civil and
criminal, and § 22, defining actions, there is no such thing as a “quasi-criminal act.”
Ex Parte Clark, 141 P. 831, 24 C.A. 389.

   People v. Battle, 50 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1  

 Driving Miss Hazy  
Excellent Law Review Article Re
Vehicle Code Infractions Being CIVIL

Stanford Law Review
    NONARREST AUTOMOBILE STOPS  
Vol. 25, June 1973

Definition of  "Complaint" v. "Notice To Appear"

Definition of COMPLAINT

  The Requirement of a VERIFIED COMPLAINT  

- What's A "Detention"? -

The United States Supreme Court has identified three categories of police contact with persons. The first is referred to as a "consensual encounter" in which there is no restraint on the person's liberty. There need be no objective justification for such an encounter. The second type, called "detention," involves a seizure of the individual for a limited duration and for limited purposes. A constitutionally acceptable detention can occur "if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime." The third type involves seizures in the nature of an arrest, which may occur only if the police have probable cause to arrest the person for a crime. (Florida v. Royer, supra, 460 U.S. 491; Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d 777.)
PEOPLE v. BAILEY , 176 Cal.App.3d 402
[No. H000583. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth Appellate District. December 17,1985.]
[Emphasis added]

Police officer may not rely on good faith, inarticulable hunches, or generalized suspicions to meet standard of reasonable suspicion to justify investigatory stop.
U.S.  v.  Velarde, 823 F. Supp. 792.  (D. Hawaii 1993)

  CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICER'S LEGAL SOURCE BOOK   
(Prepared by the California Attorney General)

SELECTED PAGES

Selected Pages - 33 megs
Search & Seizure - Person - 4 megs
Search & Seizure - Vehicle - 25 megs

"'To be valid, administrative action must be within the scope of authority conferred by the enabling statutes. . . .' . . . 'If the court determines that a challenged administrative action was not authorized by or is inconsistent with acts of the Legislature, that action is void.'" (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 113, 131-132.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002), 103 Cal.App.4th 351
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

   Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights.
Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308
[S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.]

   “So long as one uses his private property for private purposes and does not devote it to the public use, the public has no interest in it and no voice in its control.
Associated Pipe v. Railroad Commission, 176 Cal. 518

   There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one  because of the exercise of a constitutional  right.
Sherar v. Cullen,  481 F. 945 (9th Cir. 1973)
Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)
GARRITY v. NEW JERSEY, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)
MALLOY v. HOGAN, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)
BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

Read what the Court of Appeals of the State of California
and the US Supreme Court had to say about officers whose conduct IS NOT authorized  - Click HERE

Traffic Court Commissioners
are REQUIRED to follow
decisions of courts of superior jurisdiction

Auto Equity Sales, Inc v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450

"...any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's oath, or compelling the production of his private books and papers, to convict him of crime, or to forfeit his property, is contrary to the principles of a free government.  It is abhorrent to the instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the instincts of an American.  It may suit the purposes of despotic power, but it cannot abide the pure atmosphere of political liberty and personal freedom,...

And we are further of opinion that a compulsory production of the private books and papers of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, and is the equivalent of a search and seizure -- and an unreasonable search and seizure -- within the meaning of the fourth amendment,"
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)

The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself
violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to
believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant  to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 ;
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 .

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest,...