Code Infractions Are Not Crime
When a police officer makes contact the with someone that is not a
consensual encounter, the purpose must be for conduct that rises to the
leve of crime. Application of the State's police power to
NONcriminal conduct is illegal. When a police officer
the State's police power to conduct that does not rise to the level of
crime they act beyond the scope of their job and violate their oath.
An unauthorized arrest is void.
"'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.)
v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]
In absence of authorization the arrest is false. The
has not authorized police officers to apply the State's police power to
conduct that does not rise to the leve of crime.
Historical highlights from the last hundred years of the California
“Judicial Council endorses legislation that classifies minor
traffic violations as noncriminal infractions subject to trial without
2001 Annual Report
Judicial Council of California
1967 Judicial Council sponsored legislation that reclassifies minor
traffic violations as noncriminal infractions
The infraction was introduced into California law in 1969.
, 87 Cal.App.3d 101
[Crim. Nos. 18296, 18297, 18298. First Dist., Div. Three.
Dec. 7, 1978.]
Further, infractions are not crimes and the rule forbidding successive
prosecutions of a defendant is not applicable when an infraction is one
of the offenses involved. (People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d Supp.
1 [123 Cal.Rptr. 636].) fn. 1
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 27, 1987.]
―FN 1. Battle soundly reasoned infractions are not
hence, the Kellett rule was held inapplicable to prosecutions involving
(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.]
case HAS NOT been overturned
DID YOU GET A "TICKET"?
WERE "ARRESTED" - NOT "DETAINED"