Ah, let me know what the outcome is if you elect to try that approach
with an officer.
"Michael R. Clements" wrote:
>
> Kenneth,
>
> Nice reference but. . .
>
> Refusing to grant one's permission, in the absence of any physical
> resistance, does not resist, delay or obstruct the officer in his duties.
> Thus PC 148 should not apply.
>
> However, while refusing to grant permission does not physically impair the
> officer from doing whatever it is he wants to do, it does make him think
> twice about doing it, which is usually enough.
>
> Regards,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Allan Mitchell [mailto:nokones@kenmitchell.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 20:26
> To: Michael R. Clements
> Cc: John J. Stimson-III; jeff; ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Fw: CA Special Alert
>
> Don't forget 148 pc
>
> "Michael R. Clements" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the VC reference.
> >
> > It says drivers are required to submit to any "lawful order" and any
> "lawful
> > inspection". It doesn't mean you have to do everything a police officer
> > tells you to do. The key word here is "lawful".
> >
> > For example, _if_ (I repeat, "if") VC section 2814 is a violation of
> > "unreasonable search" provisions in the Federal Constitution, or a
> violation
> > of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Federal Constitution,
> then
> > Federal law overrides state law and the inspection is no longer lawful.
> > Thus, the driver need not submit.
> >
> > One can also question what it means to "submit". When I have been
> subjected
> > to this kind of thing in the past, I did not physically resist their
> attempt
> > to search me or my car, but I told them they did not have my permission to
> > do so. When one refuses to grant permission, but makes no physical
> > resistance, is this considered failure to submit?
> >
> > The officers told me to continue on my way without searching me or my car.
> > Maybe they were nice guys, maybe their commanding officers told them to do
> > that to avoid bad press or possible lawsuits. Or maybe I just looked
> > innocent and sober and it wasn't worth their time to deal with me.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Kenneth Allan
> > Mitchell
> > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 19:30
> > To: Michael R. Clements
> > Cc: John J. Stimson-III; jeff; ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: Fw: CA Special Alert
> >
> > Please read 2800 and 2814 vc
> >
> > "Michael R. Clements" wrote:
> > >
> > > Personally, the portion of the law that I would contest is if officers
> can
> > > do it indiscriminately. In general, the law should require that no
> officer
> > > can ever detain anybody at any time, unless the officer has a "damn good
> > > reason". This would include (a) a warrant, or (b) probable cause.
> > >
> > > In the example you give, the clouds of thick smoke would constitute
> > probable
> > > cause. A general roadblock does not meet either of these conditions and
> > > should thus be illegal (IMO, of course).
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of John J. Stimson-III
> > > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 10:51
> > > To: jeff
> > > Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: CA Special Alert
> > >
> > > Huh. So it is the opinion of the NMA that if a cop sees a car going
> > > down the road pouring forth thick clouds of smoke, it should be
> > > illegal for the cop to pull that car over?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2001 at 08:43:03AM -0700, jeff wrote:
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eric Skrum (National Motorists Association)"
> <nma@motorists.org>
> > > > To: "National Motorists Association" <nma@motorists.org>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 12:31 PM
> > > > Subject: CA Special Alert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear CA Members,
> > > > >
> > > > > A program is being implemented by the State of California which
> should
> > > > cause
> > > > > concern to all motorists and vehicle owners. A section in the
> > California
> > > > > Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code section 44081, allows your car
> to
> > > be
> > > > > stopped for a smog equipment and emissions inspection. This was
> > recently
> > > > > reported by NMA member Nestor Valdes. On June 27, in Camarillo, a
> > > > roadblock
> > > > > was set up and vehicles were pulled over for inspection and testing.
> > The
> > > > > actual wording in the code says "The procedures may include
> pullovers
> > > for
> > > > > roadside emissions testing and inspection."
> > > > >
> > > > > If this concerns you, and it should, please take action by
> > communicating
> > > > > your thoughts to the Governor and to your elected representatives in
> > the
> > > > > California Senate and in the Assembly. We need to jump on this
> > quickly,
> > > > > before it spreads to all areas of the State. In your letters,
> e-mails,
> > > and
> > > > > phone calls, please reference the above California Vehicle Code #
> > 44081.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can visit http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.html to find the
> contact
> > > > > information for your elected representatives.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can visit http://www.ca.gov/state/portal/myca_homepage.jsp to
> find
> > > the
> > > > > Governor's home page and his contact information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > >
> > > > > Jim Thomas
> > > > > CA Activist
> > > > > fastestdog@prodigy.net
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > john@idsfa.net John Stimson
> > > http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
> >
> > --
> > Kenneth Allan Mitchell
> > mailto:nokones@kenmitchell.com
>
> --
> Kenneth Allan Mitchell
> mailto:nokones@kenmitchell.com
--
Kenneth Allan Mitchell
mailto:nokones@kenmitchell.com
|