"Embarrassment For The Los Angeles Police Department"
Today I went to 'court' regarding a Notice to Appear ( traffic ticket / citation ) for expired registration and no proof of insurance. I subpoenaed the audio / video from the stop ( looked up the 'form' for a Duces Tecum online ) and also sent a request via the state's version of the Freedom of Information Act. I received a letter confirming the evidence would be in court from the subpoena I typed up, but never received confirmation of the information request nor any response. That letter promising me that the audio / video evidence would be in court that day was the deciding factor!
Contrary to advice, I did not file / record a motion to have the civil servant removed ( the 'judge' in the matter ) for him ignoring my previous motions and moving forward with his job and process of collecting monies. I instead wrote out a detailed account of the evening in early January of this year.
The police officer showed up and spoke to me while I was in line to enter the courtroom ( as did the other officers with other would-be clients ) to get me to either plea, ask for traffic school, etc. I asked him if he brought the audio from the stop, and with a smile, he said he didn't audio record the stop nor was he required to do so. I smelled something funny in the air. I asked him if he remembered why he pulled me over ( what the probable cause was ) and he said it was the expired tags. I then asked if he remembered exactly how things happened that night. He said he didn't. I said that's why the evidence was necessary. He asked if I had the registration and the proof in insurance. I said I didn't. I asked him if he was wronged in any way by me that evening, or if I had been suspected of committing any criminal act or was in the process of committing a criminal act, to which he replied in the negative. I told him he had no probable cause in pulling me over and that his response that evening and right there in that line was a lie. He asked if I was going to trial. I said I was. He said okay and walked away.
Quite a few dismissals happened in court today due to some police officers not showing and due to some police officers dismissing the citations they had written ( perhaps they had been proven wrong or something else ). After the dismissals came the 'Ticket Clinic" cases run by one attorney... and it wasn't what I thought it was: the charges were only minimized and discounted, but nothing was dismissed except for one officer who didn't show up. None of the officers objected to anything this particular attorney had to say, and I noticed how that service in teevee commercials really has you thinking you are getting away with something, but that wasn't the case from my observation this morning.
Then came the actual trials, and I was first up to bat. The judge firstly asked if I had the registration and insurance, to which I replied "peace be with you, Mr. Brenner." He quickly thanked me for that with a look away and to the floor. I then proceeded to ask if there was a court reporter present or if the hearing was being recorded in some manner. He said no, this was traffic court. I then added that it then was an inferior court since there is no record keeping. He said it was traffic court and wouldn't argue with me regarding this matter. I then said he must agree that it is in fact an inferior court since all courts in California are to be courts of record.
He asked again if I had the registration and insurance, to which I answered that I had filed a motion prior to court, to which he said he did read it prior to coming out and that he would first have to hear what the officer had to say. I then asked if the officer could recant that evening's chain of events.
He asked the officer to tell what happened and officer Ibarra read from a folded piece of paper who he was, and the time and date of the stop, the make and model of the vehicle and how he pulled me over for expired tags. And he was done.
The judge then asked me if I had insurance and current tags, to which I said I had a response from the LAPD regarding the subpoena of the audio which would refute the testimony that Officer Ibarra just swore to. He asked to see it so I handed the bailiff the letter and Mr. Brenner asked Mr. Ibarra if he had brought the audio from the stop. Mr. Ibarra stated he wasn't required to audio / video record stops. The magistrate's response was a frown as he read the letter carefully once again.
I looked over at the bailiff who thought she was the boss of the place and smiled. She had given me a hard time last time I was there and was also trying to push her weight around today and wanted to intimidate everyone with her supposed 'authority.' She asked me to remove my white Goorin Brothers Fedora. In response to her order I asked her if this was a place of worship. She gave me a stonewalled stare, and after a few uncomfortable seconds I slowly removed my crown with a sly smile across my face. She then said she was thinking about the question and that was the reason for her lack of a response.
A few minutes later I remember I hadn't filed the current motion ( a Declaration of Facts and Order to Show Cause ). I caught her eye as she was leaving the clerk's area and asked her about filing my motion with the clerk in that courtroom and she pointed to where the clerk was, giving me the okay to approach that area and move through the bar. So I exited the aisle and walked through the nearest bar doors ( on the left side ) as opposed to entering on the right side where she and everyone else was moving. She stopped me a few feet away from the clerk's area and said I couldn't be using that particular area as a public throughway ( behind the bar - in between the bench and the little wall separating the public ). I tried not to give her a 'look' as I said I was a few feet away from the clerk's area, that I was already there. She said I had to go around, to which I did after a few moments of pause and reflection of the attitude I was getting. I pondered what I would say to her if the moment struck me.
After I had filed the original, the magistrate's copy and had my copy time stamped, I was returning to the aisle I was seated at and there was Ms. Benjamin ( the bailiff's tag name ). I walked up close to her in order to read her name tag and address her formally. She notices me near her and seemed offended and said never to walk up on her like that and that I was in her space. She is quite portly so it is very difficult to not be anywhere within or in her space. I responded that I needed to read her name tag for I was going to speak to her. I stepped forward to get near the aisle and to speak to her ( she was four feet away at this point ) and again, louder this time, she exclaims that I am in her space. I firmly responded with "I understand you have a job to do Ms. Benjamin. I also acknowledge you have an authority here but I do NOT recognize that authority, and I am only complying out of respect to the Almighty." She said she too respects the Almighty. I moved on and took a seat.
So, back to the issue of the citation. Mr. Brenner asks Mr. Ibarra twice if he had seen the order to bring the audio / video recording of the stop, to which Mr. Ibarra said he had not seen the letter. Mr. Brenner was a bit perplexed and said this was an embarrassment to the Los Angeles Police Department in how they function and communicate internally.
He said he was going to have to dismiss the case. He then looked over at me and said "Mr. Santiago, this doesn't mean you can drive around without having current registration and proper proof of financial responsibility, regardless of what you believe or what you believe to be the law.... Suppose you were at a stop somewhere minding your own business and someone smashed into you and they had no means to pay your damages." I nodded in agreement to his 'what if' and said "thank you, Mr. Brenner."
I walked out right behind Mr. Ibarra and when I caught his eyes a few moments later in the 'halls of justice,' I thanked him for being honest.
I thank the Father in heaven for bringing things to a positive resolve regarding this issue. He works in wondrous ways and from what I sensed, the officer's lies caught up with him right there for all to see.
Contrary to advice, I did not file / record a motion to have the civil servant removed ( the 'judge' in the matter ) for him ignoring my previous motions and moving forward with his job and process of collecting monies. I instead wrote out a detailed account of the evening in early January of this year.
The police officer showed up and spoke to me while I was in line to enter the courtroom ( as did the other officers with other would-be clients ) to get me to either plea, ask for traffic school, etc. I asked him if he brought the audio from the stop, and with a smile, he said he didn't audio record the stop nor was he required to do so. I smelled something funny in the air. I asked him if he remembered why he pulled me over ( what the probable cause was ) and he said it was the expired tags. I then asked if he remembered exactly how things happened that night. He said he didn't. I said that's why the evidence was necessary. He asked if I had the registration and the proof in insurance. I said I didn't. I asked him if he was wronged in any way by me that evening, or if I had been suspected of committing any criminal act or was in the process of committing a criminal act, to which he replied in the negative. I told him he had no probable cause in pulling me over and that his response that evening and right there in that line was a lie. He asked if I was going to trial. I said I was. He said okay and walked away.
Quite a few dismissals happened in court today due to some police officers not showing and due to some police officers dismissing the citations they had written ( perhaps they had been proven wrong or something else ). After the dismissals came the 'Ticket Clinic" cases run by one attorney... and it wasn't what I thought it was: the charges were only minimized and discounted, but nothing was dismissed except for one officer who didn't show up. None of the officers objected to anything this particular attorney had to say, and I noticed how that service in teevee commercials really has you thinking you are getting away with something, but that wasn't the case from my observation this morning.
Then came the actual trials, and I was first up to bat. The judge firstly asked if I had the registration and insurance, to which I replied "peace be with you, Mr. Brenner." He quickly thanked me for that with a look away and to the floor. I then proceeded to ask if there was a court reporter present or if the hearing was being recorded in some manner. He said no, this was traffic court. I then added that it then was an inferior court since there is no record keeping. He said it was traffic court and wouldn't argue with me regarding this matter. I then said he must agree that it is in fact an inferior court since all courts in California are to be courts of record.
He asked again if I had the registration and insurance, to which I answered that I had filed a motion prior to court, to which he said he did read it prior to coming out and that he would first have to hear what the officer had to say. I then asked if the officer could recant that evening's chain of events.
He asked the officer to tell what happened and officer Ibarra read from a folded piece of paper who he was, and the time and date of the stop, the make and model of the vehicle and how he pulled me over for expired tags. And he was done.
The judge then asked me if I had insurance and current tags, to which I said I had a response from the LAPD regarding the subpoena of the audio which would refute the testimony that Officer Ibarra just swore to. He asked to see it so I handed the bailiff the letter and Mr. Brenner asked Mr. Ibarra if he had brought the audio from the stop. Mr. Ibarra stated he wasn't required to audio / video record stops. The magistrate's response was a frown as he read the letter carefully once again.
I looked over at the bailiff who thought she was the boss of the place and smiled. She had given me a hard time last time I was there and was also trying to push her weight around today and wanted to intimidate everyone with her supposed 'authority.' She asked me to remove my white Goorin Brothers Fedora. In response to her order I asked her if this was a place of worship. She gave me a stonewalled stare, and after a few uncomfortable seconds I slowly removed my crown with a sly smile across my face. She then said she was thinking about the question and that was the reason for her lack of a response.
A few minutes later I remember I hadn't filed the current motion ( a Declaration of Facts and Order to Show Cause ). I caught her eye as she was leaving the clerk's area and asked her about filing my motion with the clerk in that courtroom and she pointed to where the clerk was, giving me the okay to approach that area and move through the bar. So I exited the aisle and walked through the nearest bar doors ( on the left side ) as opposed to entering on the right side where she and everyone else was moving. She stopped me a few feet away from the clerk's area and said I couldn't be using that particular area as a public throughway ( behind the bar - in between the bench and the little wall separating the public ). I tried not to give her a 'look' as I said I was a few feet away from the clerk's area, that I was already there. She said I had to go around, to which I did after a few moments of pause and reflection of the attitude I was getting. I pondered what I would say to her if the moment struck me.
After I had filed the original, the magistrate's copy and had my copy time stamped, I was returning to the aisle I was seated at and there was Ms. Benjamin ( the bailiff's tag name ). I walked up close to her in order to read her name tag and address her formally. She notices me near her and seemed offended and said never to walk up on her like that and that I was in her space. She is quite portly so it is very difficult to not be anywhere within or in her space. I responded that I needed to read her name tag for I was going to speak to her. I stepped forward to get near the aisle and to speak to her ( she was four feet away at this point ) and again, louder this time, she exclaims that I am in her space. I firmly responded with "I understand you have a job to do Ms. Benjamin. I also acknowledge you have an authority here but I do NOT recognize that authority, and I am only complying out of respect to the Almighty." She said she too respects the Almighty. I moved on and took a seat.
So, back to the issue of the citation. Mr. Brenner asks Mr. Ibarra twice if he had seen the order to bring the audio / video recording of the stop, to which Mr. Ibarra said he had not seen the letter. Mr. Brenner was a bit perplexed and said this was an embarrassment to the Los Angeles Police Department in how they function and communicate internally.
He said he was going to have to dismiss the case. He then looked over at me and said "Mr. Santiago, this doesn't mean you can drive around without having current registration and proper proof of financial responsibility, regardless of what you believe or what you believe to be the law.... Suppose you were at a stop somewhere minding your own business and someone smashed into you and they had no means to pay your damages." I nodded in agreement to his 'what if' and said "thank you, Mr. Brenner."
I walked out right behind Mr. Ibarra and when I caught his eyes a few moments later in the 'halls of justice,' I thanked him for being honest.
I thank the Father in heaven for bringing things to a positive resolve regarding this issue. He works in wondrous ways and from what I sensed, the officer's lies caught up with him right there for all to see.
Comments