seatbelt violation in California

2015(Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 [constitutionality of traffic stop does not depend on "ulterior motive" of officer involved]; People v. Gallardo (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 234, 238 [after officer stopped and detained motorist for broken taillight, officer received motorist's consent to search vehicle for weapons or narcotics]; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 ["Stopping defendant's vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal"].) 4 In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, we

2014In upholding the trial court’s denial of that motion, the appellate court held that although Gomez’s detention was unreasonably prolonged, thereby transforming the detention into a de facto arrest, the arrest was supported by probable cause that appellant was engaged in drug trafficking. ( Gomez, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at pp. 537-538.) “Alternatively,” in the portion of the opinion relevant to the instant case, the court upheld the denial of Gomez’s suppression motion on the following basis: “[I]n light of Atwater, … the seatbelt violation that led to the initial detention also supplied probab

2015(Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 [constitutionality of traffic stop does not depend on "ulterior motive" of officer involved]; People v. Gallardo (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 234, 238 [after officer stopped and detained motorist for broken taillight, officer received motorist's consent to search vehicle for weapons or narcotics]; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 ["Stopping defendant's vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal"].) 4 In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, we

2004(Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 771-772 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 994 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 ]; Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 [ 135 L.Ed.2d 89 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 ]; People v. Ramirez (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1557, fn. 1 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 ].) But as defendant argues, the length of his detention extended far beyond the 15 minutes Floren testified would have been needed to prepare a traffic citation.

2010(People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ], citing Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 771-772 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 994 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 ], Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at pp. 812-813 and Ramirez, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1557, fn. 1 .) We conclude the vehicle stop did not violate constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.

2004(Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 771-772 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 994 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 ]; Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 [ 135 L.Ed.2d 89 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 ]; People v. Ramirez (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1557, fn. 1 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 341 ].) But as defendant argues, the length of his detention extended far beyond the 15 minutes Floren testified would have been needed to prepare a traffic citation.

2010(People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ], citing Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 771-772 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 994 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 ], Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at pp. 812-813 and Ramirez, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1557, fn. 1 .) We conclude the vehicle stop did not violate constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.

2010(People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 [ 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 398 ], citing Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 771-772 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 994 , 121 S.Ct. 1876 ], Whren, supra, 517 U.S. at pp. 812-813 and Ramirez, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1557, fn. 1 .) We conclude the vehicle stop did not violate constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure.

2014Appellant argues that Gomez does not advance respondent’s cause because (1) the relevant portion of Gomez—its “‘alternative’ holding”—is dicta, and (2) Gomez “improperly extended the reasoning of McKay” because, in McKay, the defendant was taken into custody for a traffic violation (McKay, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 606 ), whereas, in Gomez, “there clearly was never an actual arrest or intent to arrest for a violation of Vehicle Code section 24601.” These points, in our view, are not well taken.

2004As the court concluded in McKay , “the Fourth Amendment inquiry does not depend on whether the challenged police conduct was authorized by state law.” (People v. McKay, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 610, calling into doubt People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 586-587 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 191 , 601 P.2d 207 ] [extended detention exceeded constitutional limits where state law did not authorize custodial arrest for minor traffic violation].) Thus, it is irrelevant that a seatbelt violation typically would result in a brief detention for purposes of issuing a citation.

2026(People v. Brady (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1325 (Brady).) Deetch also contends that because no expert testified a seatbelt would have saved Cabrera, and because Deetch himself was unbuckled and survived, the seatbelt violation cannot be the proximate cause of her death.

2015(Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 812-813 [constitutionality of traffic stop does not depend on "ulterior motive" of officer involved]; People v. Gallardo (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 234, 238 [after officer stopped and detained motorist for broken taillight, officer received motorist's consent to search vehicle for weapons or narcotics]; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 537 ["Stopping defendant's vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal"].) 4 In reviewing the trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, we

2013(People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 749 , overruled on another ground in People v. DeVaughn (1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896, fn. 5 .) The evidence set forth above more than meets that standard.

2004As the court concluded in McKay , “the Fourth Amendment inquiry does not depend on whether the challenged police conduct was authorized by state law.” (People v. McKay, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 610, calling into doubt People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 586-587 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 191 , 601 P.2d 207 ] [extended detention exceeded constitutional limits where state law did not authorize custodial arrest for minor traffic violation].) Thus, it is irrelevant that a seatbelt violation typically would result in a brief detention for purposes of issuing a citation.

2004As the court concluded in McKay , “the Fourth Amendment inquiry does not depend on whether the challenged police conduct was authorized by state law.” (People v. McKay, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 610, calling into doubt People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 586-587 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 191 , 601 P.2d 207 ] [extended detention exceeded constitutional limits where state law did not authorize custodial arrest for minor traffic violation].) Thus, it is irrelevant that a seatbelt violation typically would result in a brief detention for purposes of issuing a citation.

2004On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60, 77 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 38 P.3d 433 ].) Stopping defendant’s vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal.

2004On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power . . . .’ [Citations.]” (In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60, 77 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 38 P.3d 433 ].) Stopping defendant’s vehicle for a seatbelt violation, even if done as a pretext for the narcotics investigation, was entirely legal.

2004Alternatively, in light of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 549 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 ], the seatbelt violation that led to the initial detention also supplied probable cause for defendant’s de facto arrest.

2004Alternatively, in light of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 549 , 121 S.Ct. 1536 ], the seatbelt violation that led to the initial detention also supplied probable cause for defendant’s de facto arrest.

1987The court stated: “Manifestly, the limitations which the foregoing rules [set out in Klemme v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 640, 644-645 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 109 ], discussing the impropriety of litigating the issue of apportionment of fault among defendants and other concurrent tortfeasors not before the court] placed on appellant’s presenting the issue and defense of the negligence and fault of city and county for the causation of this accident, resulted because of the trial court’s original ruling [at the time of trial] which is complained of as error, in denying app

1987The court stated: “Manifestly, the limitations which the foregoing rules [set out in Klemme v. Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 640, 644-645 [ 163 Cal.Rptr. 109 ], discussing the impropriety of litigating the issue of apportionment of fault among defendants and other concurrent tortfeasors not before the court] placed on appellant’s presenting the issue and defense of the negligence and fault of city and county for the causation of this accident, resulted because of the trial court’s original ruling [at the time of trial] which is complained of as error, in denying app