Traffic Court Observation Paper

Traffic court is just like any other kind of proceeding that happens in a courtroom. For many people the idea of going to courtroom alone is scary and intimidating. When you attend court and are represented with a traffic attorney you'll increase the chance that you'll walk out from the court room successful. A lawyer who's familiar with all the rules of the actual court will keep your case is presented in a manner that is intelligent, reasonable and persuasive.

The plaintiff accompanied his son and son’s friend and knowing the fact that the driver (McNeilly) is inexperienced so he drove himself where the road was hilly and difficult while he allowed both the defendant and his son occasionally for some drive spells when it was clear two lane track with no obvious corrugations.

Pursuant to California Vehicle Code (40902), I plead not guilty by Trial by Written Declaration of the charges of CVC 22349 (b). I have paid the fine of $352 and have attached the receipt to the case as instructed.

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

The petitioner Graham, in this case, is a diabetic man who has asked his friend Berry to drive him to the convenience store to counteract his onset insulin reaction by purchasing a container of orange juice. Seeing the number of people in the store upon his arrival, petitioner Graham hurries back out to the car Berry is currently waiting for him in, asking Berry to drive him over to one of his friend’s houses instead. A city officer respondent Connor grew uncertain witnessing petitioner Graham quickly enter and exit the store, so he followed Berry’s car making an investigative stop, telling the two of them to stand by while Officer Connor gathers the details of what had happened in the store. Upon backup police officers arrival on scene, Graham was put into handcuffs, sustaining multiple injuries while the officers ignored any

The outline of the Fare v. Michael C. and the facts, issue, and court holding are that a 16-year-old boy was taken into custody by police on suspicion of murder. Respondent Michael C., a juvenile, was under suspicion for murder. Brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for questioning, Michael requested to speak to his probation officer at the beginning of the interrogation. Michael was already on probation with the juvenile courts for things he had done pervious. Also Michael request to speak with his probation officer. The rules of the Miranda states that if a person wishes to remain silent or want to talk to his or her attorney, the questioning office has to cease until the asking person appears. Michael changed his statement and

Facts: The defendant was pulled over after the officer saw him swerving in between lanes. The officer did not tell him he was free to leave, but the officer believed it. He asked him to step out of the car and perform a balancing test. After failing the test he was placed under

[A] Absolutely, the reasonable suspicion of Deputy Sanderson was sufficient enough to expand a lawful traffic stop regarding the burnout headlight of the defendant’s vehicle. When Deputy Sanderson approached the Petitioner Mr. Haverford, it was completely a different story. By observing the defendant himself, Deputy Sanderson suspected that the defendant was under the influence of some kind of drugs. The reason why is because the defendant was extremely nervous. It is understandable to be nervous when to pull over by an officer but in this case it was not. The way the hands of the defendant were shaking is one clue. Plus the defendant upper body was shaking abnormally, clue number two. And finally, Deputy Sanderson took a good look at the defendant eyes and he realized the eyes were restricted [page 4], clue number three.

The defendant plead guilty to all of his charges. To begin the judge gave the defendant more time to pay his fine. Then the prosecutor began by saying that the defendant was non-compliant, had consistently sabotaged the people around him, and that his mother had called him a selfish individual. Since the defendant had been on probation he had constantly committed new offences. At one point, he had been living in a group home and six days after sentencing he had committed new offences. The crown requested that he should be sentenced 6 months deferred custody.

Police patrolman Lovell sighted the unarmed respondent on the street, arrested him, placed him into his patrol car and read him his Miranda rights. At which time, the defendant chose to invoke his right to remain silent and asked for an attorney.

This case provided a clear reason to conduct the traffic stop, Officer Stoddard, observed the actions of the driver and its passengers. He had a couple concerns; the vehicle which was commonly used for drug transportation, the driver and his demeanor, and the erratic driving that took place after they passed him. Officer Stoddard also testified that the defendant then attempted to avoid the Border checkpoint by turning down the last road possible before reaching the checkpoint. These particular actions brought about the reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. He followed the rules of his agency after conducting the stop, he was granted the permission to search the vehicle where he found then recovered the notated findings. Through

The court held that the facts of this case showed a clear waiver, from Michael, of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court held this decision because Michael told the officer’s he would talk to them, the waiver was advised of prior to questioning and that Michael had knowledge of the process because he had been in court on several occasions and has a probation officer. Therefore, he knew he was waiving his right when he told the officer’s he would talk to

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the police officer’s search of the Defendant’s home was unreasonable.

When Castille was stopped for the broken taillight, he provided his information to the officer and complied with all direction. Castille admitted that he had a gun and also told the officer that he had a conceal and carry permit. When Castille went to show him the permit, the

That same day I headed down to the magistrate court I had been here before. This court is more of assembly line justice sine each case is probably like 5 minutes long. The judges name was locatell. The first case I heard was a male he was being charged with reckless driving. The judge then tells him that is a 5 day minimum in jail. At this point u enter a plea he entedred a not guilty plead. After he please there is a bench trail and there will be a posector and see what you sentence will be and the cop that issued the ticket will be there so that both stories can be heard. What I also noticed at this court is that you don’t have to be dressed up you can show up like you just rolled out of bed.