Traffic complaints brought by a private citizen in San Diego

[Dillon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Is anyone familiar with the process by which a private complaint about a traffic misdemeanor would get into traffic court in California, particularly San Diego city? ie how is the complaint taken, who reviews it, who prosecutes it, how the defendant is served etc. I have someone threatening to do this to me, and it probably won't happen, but I'm interested in the process anyway.

•The victim or the police must fill out a legal complaint form and file it with the court system, as required in the appropriate state statutes
•The victim must prove that there is reasonable cause to file a criminal complaint against another person
•In most states, the complaint will be forwarded to the district attorney’s office, where the complaint will be approved or disapproved. There is usually an investigation, determining if there is sufficient evidence of a crime to file criminal charges
•If criminal charges are filed, the victim must then be prepared to appear in court, if required, to testify against the perpetrator

----------------

The points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case are called the "elements" of that cause of action. For example, for a claim of negligence, the elements are: the (existence of a) duty, breach (of that duty), proximate cause (by that breach), and actual DAMAGES.

If a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court, upon motion by the opposing party, may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

------------------

if no damages are listed on a VERIFIED complaint then its void Ab initio. (Latin/Legal term meaning "from the beginning")

 

[LdiJ]

The points a plaintiff must prove to win a given type of case are called the "elements" of that cause of action. For example, for a claim of negligence, the elements are: the (existence of a) duty, breach (of that duty), proximate cause (by that breach), and damages.

If a complaint does not allege facts sufficient to support every element of a claim, the court, upon motion by the opposing party, may dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

if no damages are listed on the complaint then its void Ab initio. (Latin/Legal term meaning "from the beginning")

I interpreted OP's question differently than you did. I interpreted it to mean that someone was threatening to make a citizen's arrest. I hope OP will clarify.

 

[Dillon]

I interpreted OP's question differently than you did. I interpreted it to mean that someone was threatening to make a citizen's arrest. I hope OP will clarify.

the OP must check this state's statues, in most states private citizens dont detain people for misdemeanors.

 

[sandyclaus]

I found this on the very subject. I'm sure this is open to interpretation, but apply as you see fit:

Penal Code Section 837. A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

The only possible application of this to a violation of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) is par. 1, which in turn depends on the definition of a "public offense." This is covered in Sections 15 & 16:

PC 15. A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is
annexed, upon conviction, either of the following punishments:

1. Death;
2. Imprisonment;
3. Fine;
4. Removal from office; or,
5. Disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit in this State.

PC 16. Crimes and public offenses include:

1. Felonies;
2. Misdemeanors; and
3. Infractions.

Felonies and misdeameanors are serious crimes which may be punished by imprisonment, whereas an infraction can only be punished by a fine not exceeding $250 (see below). The applicability of a citizen's arrest to a violation of the CVC thus turns on whether such a violation is an infraction. This is covered below:

PC 17 (d) A violation of any code section listed in Section 19.8 is an infraction subject to the procedures described in Sections 19.6
and 19.7 when:
(1) The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time he or she is arraigned, after being informed of his or her rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor, or;
(2) The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction in which event the case shall proceed as
if the defendant had been arraigned on an infraction complaint.

Finally, the violations of the CVC that can be charged as an infraction are specified in Section 19.8 as follows:

The following offenses are subject to subdivision (d) of Section 17: Sections 193.8, 330, 415, 485, 490.7, 555, 652, and 853.7 of this code; subdivision of Section 602 of this code; subdivision (b) of Section 25658 and Sections 21672, 25658.5, 25661, and 25662 of
the Business and Professions Code; Section 27204 of the Government Code; subdivision (c) of Section 23109 and Sections 12500, 14601.1, 27150.1, 40508, and 42005 of the Vehicle Code, and any other offense which the Legislature makes subject to subdivision (d) of Section 17. Except where a lesser maximum fine is expressly provided for a violation of any of those sections, any violation which is an infraction is punishable by a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

Therefore, the sections of the CVC that can be charged as an infraction are:

Section 23109 (c) - speed contest or speed exhibition on a highway
Sections 12500 - driving on a highway without a valid license
Section 14601.1 - driving with suspended or revoked license
Section 27150.1 - applies to a business installing improper mufflers
Section 40508 - willful violation of promise to appear (re traffic matter)
Section 42005 - failure to attend traffic school

Anyone interested in researching these (and any other) California statutes on your own, can use the following web link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

CONCLUSION: NONE OF THE COMMON CVC VIOLATIONS (SPEEDING, FAILURE TO STOP, GOING THROUGH A LIGHT, CROSSING A DOUBLE LINE, ETC.) ARE PUNISHABLE AS INFRACTIONS, AND THEREFORE A PRIVATE CITIZEN (INCLUDING A SECURITY GUARD) CANNOT MAKE A "CITIZEN'S ARREST" FOR AN ORDINARY TRAFFIC VIOLATION.

 

[Dillon]

I found this on the very subject. I'm sure this is open to interpretation, but apply as you see fit:

SANDYCLAUS'S CONCLUSION IS: NONE OF THE COMMON CVC VIOLATIONS (SPEEDING, FAILURE TO STOP, GOING THROUGH A LIGHT, CROSSING A DOUBLE LINE, ETC.) ARE PUNISHABLE AS INFRACTIONS, AND THEREFORE A PRIVATE CITIZEN (INCLUDING A SECURITY GUARD) CANNOT MAKE A "CITIZEN'S ARREST" FOR AN ORDINARY TRAFFIC VIOLATION

--------------------

MY CONCLUSION IS: police are agents for the state (aka, the people of california)

what I can do by proxy, I can do directly, you know?

if the people can't do a thing by law, how do their agents have authority?

delagated authority is not lost authority

----------

prox·y defined

1. the agency, function, or power of a person authorized to act as the deputy or substitute for another.

2. the person so authorized; substitute; agent.

3. a written authorization empowering another person to vote or act for the signer, as at a meeting of stockholders.

4. an ally or confederate who can be relied upon to speak or act in one's behalf.

 

[sandyclaus]

Oh, yes, Dillon. Everything is just one big conspiracy to you, isn't it?

 

[Dillon]

Oh, yes, Dillon. Everything is just one big conspiracy to you, isn't it?

IS THAT YOUR CONSLUSION? I dont think so...

---------------------

Your previously posted conclusion is correct, it just does not contain all the facts, that's all.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Is anyone familiar with the process by which a private complaint about a traffic misdemeanor would get into traffic court in California, particularly San Diego city? ie how is the complaint taken, who reviews it, who prosecutes it, how the defendant is served etc. I have someone threatening to do this to me, and it probably won't happen, but I'm interested in the process anyway.

What do you mean by a "traffic misdemeanor"? Most traffic offenses are infractions.

And, the way you would do it would be the same as for any other crime. If you witnessed the act, can ID the driver by pointing out where he is, and wished to place the person under private person's arrest, you call the police, make a report, and indicate you'd like to place the operator under a private person's arrest. The police can then give him a citation and you can attend court to try to convince a judge of the offense.

if the person is no longer in the area but you can identify him and wished to request charges, the police can take a report and send it to the DA or the city attorney as appropriate. I'll tell you right now that they will not file on the case, but you can still report it to the police.

As a note, when I was down there we WOULD accept these arrests and reports and they would (occasionally) be filed upon. But, they had money back then.

 

[CdwJava]

the OP must check this state's statues, in most states private citizens dont detain people for misdemeanors.

In CA a private person may make an arrest for any public offense committed in their presence, and for felonies for which they have probable cause to believe occurred.

PC 837
A private person may arrest another:
1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.
2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.
3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.​

Oh, and the state does not have to prove any damage or harm for the offense to be a crime ... unless damage or harm is an element of the particular offense.

 

[CdwJava]

I found this on the very subject. I'm sure this is open to interpretation, but apply as you see fit:

That's an interesting discussion, but I don't see where the author presents any real evidence that says an infraction CANNOT be subject to a private person's arrest. While it is impractical for the DA or city attorney to file on these matters, a police officer would be obligated by law to accept the arrest and act upon it in some acceptable way. But, that action certainly does not guarantee that the matter will get filed.

 

[Dillon]

In CA a private person may make an arrest for any public offense committed in their presence, and for felonies for which they have probable cause to believe occurred.

Oh, and the state does not have to prove any damage or harm for the offense to be a crime ... unless damage or harm is an element of the particular offense.

Damages are always an element of any vaild complaint, its called legal standing.

if no persons individual rights were violated and there was no damages alleged in a complaint, how can any court of record even here the matter?

the Arizona Constitution states it best: Sec. 2. Political power; purpose of government

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

 

[CdwJava]

Damages are always an element of any vaild complaint, its called legal standing.

Maybe in la-la land, but not in California where we are explicitly NOT a "common law" state.

if no persons legal rights were violated and there was no damages alleged in a complaint, how can any court of record even here the matter?

Because it is a public offense (a crime) as defined under state law.

Haven't we gone over this numerous times? And do you REALLY believe that you have discovered an out that EVERY MEMBER OF THE STATE BAR and the judiciary has overlooked since ... forever??? Really! if your theory worked, then traffic offenses would have been wiped off the books decades ago ... they haven't been, and statutes with no specific victim, harm or damage have been permitted by the courts for more than 200 years.

 

[demurringdude]

Thanks for all those interesting replies! I think CdwJava has answered my question.

This was a case where someone wanted me to have to go to traffic court, but there were no police witnesses to the "accident" that he dreamed up. Just himself. I suppose he thought he could be a witness, and someone else would generously come along to represent The People.

It could have been filed as misdemeanor I think, because I never stopped or reported it (because it didn't happen). That's what the police officer told me anyway when he called me. He also gave me the impression it was headed for the round file because there was no "injury". Anyone know what "injury" means in traffic court?

 

[sandyclaus]

Injury would refer to actual medical injury to someone involved in the accident, which may or may not result in actual medical expenses to the injured party. When one of the drivers is physically injured, the accident is seen as more severe.

 

[Dillon]

Maybe in la-la land, but not in California where we are explicitly NOT a "common law" state.

Because it is a public offense (a crime) as defined under state law.

A court of record is a common law court per (blacks 4th)

Again, states dont have delageted authority to abolish common law, equity law or admiralty/maritime law systems.

California's legal system is based on common law, which is interpreted by case law through the decisions of the Supreme Court of California and the California Courts of Appeal.