Vehicle 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 applies 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.)
Hamilton v. Gourley (2002) , Cal.App.4th
[No. C038751. Third Dist. Oct. 31, 2002.]

In absence of authorization the arrest is false.  The Legislature has not authorized police officers to apply the State's police power to conduct that does not rise to the leve of crime.

COURT NEWS   
NOVEMBER―DECEMBER 1999
Historical highlights from the last hundred years of the California judiciary
1965
“Judicial Council endorses legislation that classifies minor traffic violations as noncriminal infractions subject to trial without jury”
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courtnews/novdec99-3.pdf

2001 Annual Report
Judicial Council of California
p. 6       
MILESTONES
1967 Judicial Council sponsored legislation that reclassifies minor traffic violations as noncriminal infractions
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/ar2001-1.pdf

The infraction was introduced into California law in 1969.
People v. Shults, 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 crimes; hence, the Kellett rule was held inapplicable to prosecutions involving infractions.
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.]
(NOTE:  This case HAS NOT been overturned.)

 

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