11 Responses to “There Are Defenses to Driving on a Suspended License (VC 14601.1)”

1. johny why February 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am

   I checked 14601.1, and I do NOT see anything in 14601.1 which confirms the above statements by Traffic Court Pros.

   I find NOTHING in the code which says I had to be in violation of the law BEFORE I was pulled over, or that the case can be dismissed if the stop was not justified.

   RESPONSE:

   Johny,

   It’s hard to explain because I have no idea how much you know about how the law works, but here is my best shot at a summary of a complex subject.

   The rule prohibiting an unlawful stop of a vehicle or arrest is not found in the California Vehicle Code.

   It is found in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (Federal Law - not state law), and declared with more detail in section 1538.5 of the California Penal Code (and the case law relating to that section).

   Essentially, you were looking in the wrong place.

   But here is how it works in a nutshell.

   The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits any federal or state government or government agent (police) from engaging in any “Unreasonable” searches or seizures.

   Over the last 200 years, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that:

   1. Any seizure (arrest or detention) by the government without a warrant signed by a judge is per se “UnReasonable” under the 4th Amendment, and therefore illegal;

   and

   2. that the stop of a vehicle by a police officer during a traffic stop qualifies as a “seizure “under the 4th Amendment requiring a warrant - Or an exception to the warrant rule.

   This means that all stops of a vehicle by the police without a warrant (or exception to the warrant rule) are - by default - unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

   To stop a vehicle legally, the police must either have: 1) a warrant; or 2) an exception to the warrant rule.

   If they do not, any stop is made in violation of the 4th Amendment, and the seizure is therefore unconstitutional.

   When a seizure is unconstitutional, all evidence that comes from it cannot be used in court. And without evidence, the cases usually must be dismissed.

   There are many exceptions to the warrant rule. The exception that applies with nearly all vehicle stops is that the police are not required to get a warrant to stop a car if they witness a violation of law in progress.

   The case law over time has developed the following requirements for a police officer to stop a car legally without a warrant using the violation of law in progress exception:

   The officer must have specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer in the same situation to believe that:

   1) a violation of law has been committed; and

   2) that the person (or vehicle) they are detaining was involved in the violation.

   Thus, if they see you speeding, they have witnessed a violation of the California Vehicle Code, and have an exception to the warrant requirement. With that exception, they can stop the car without a warrant.

   If the police do not witness a violation, and do not have a warrant, they cannot pull over a car, because it would be an unreasonable seizure under the fourth amendment.

   So in VC 14601.1 cases (suspended license) it works like this:

   There is no way for the police to know that the driver does not have a valid drivers license before pulling the car over. In fact, they have no way of knowing who is driving.

   If they just pull someone over without specific and articulable facts leading them to believe there is a violation, it is an unconstitutional stop.

   So, generally, there is no way for the police to make a legal stop of an unlicensed driver unless they witness another violation, such as speeding, to justify the seizure.

   Frequently, the police will pull over a car for some reason, and find out that a person has a suspended drivers license after the seizure has started. They then the write a citation, or make an arrest for the 14601.1 charge without ever documenting the legal reason for the stop in the first place.

   When there is no warrant, and no documented exception to the warrant rule, an attorney can make a motion to the court to dismiss the case under Penal Code section 1538.8, and the court will hold a hearing to determine if the police office had a legal justification for the stop. The police officer testifies at the hearing as to the reason for the seizure, and if the officer has no valid reason (or a defendant can prove the officer is lying or fabricating the reason for the stop), the stop should be ruled illegal.

   OK - that is a summary of how it works. The bottom line is that there is much more to an illegal arrest than just Vehicle Code 14601.1. And defenses to a Veh Code 14601.1 charge may be found in other codes, statutes and laws.

   If you have a case where this may be an issue, I recommend hiring an attorney who has made and won Penal Code section 1538.5 motions.

   It’s probably not something you can expect to do well without a law degree and courtroom experience.

   I won my first Penal Code section 1538.5 suppression motion 10 years ago working as a public defender. In that case, the officer claimed he saw a knife in the car through a back window. We proved he could not see anything through the window, and the judge ruled the stop was illegal, even thought the driver had a suspended license. Case dismissed because of a constitutional violation.

   If your case is in the SF Bay Area, send me your info and I will send you a case review.

   If it is in LA area, contact Attorney Juan C. Lozano: lozanolaw@gmail.com

   Sincerely,

   Christopher Dort, Esq.
   info@dortlaw.com

2. Ron Johnson June 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

   No Citation Evidence of Illegal Arrest?

   I was stopped by chp for speeding on 5/17/08.There was a warrant for 14601 in another county in ca. I was detained for the warrant,I have learnd now that I’m being charged for suspd license and there is no sign of the speeding ticket.I was told by a court clerk that the officer has 1 year to file this ticket. If I go to trial, is that ticket admissable as evidence of the seizure?-I was arraigned only for 14601 with 2 priors.

   Answer: This is a great question. It’s some what tricky, because it seems like if there was not citation or ticket, there should be no violation. But that’s not true. You can have facts that establish a vehicle code violation without a citation, and a citation is only one form of evidence to the facts of a situation that a judge will consider.

   The court will assume that the detention or arrest was lawful unless the defendant challenges it in a “suppression motion” (Generally Penal Code section 1538.5). If the arrest or detention is challenged, the judge hears the motion and evidence, and decides whether it was legal under the 4th Amended to the US Constitution.

   If a defendant does not make a motion to suppress based upon an illegal arrest or detention, the court will not consider the issue.

   Unfortunately, it’s not the ticket or citation that the prosecution needs to establish a lawful arrest or detention. It’s the evidence of FACTS that lead to probable cause to detain or arrest. Paper documentation of facts in a report or citation is helpful to a prosecutor, but not required.

   Regardless of whether an officer cites a person for a violation, the arresting officer can (and has a legal duty to) appear at a suppression hearing to testify as to the facts of the contested arrest. If an officer comes into a hearing and testifies under oath that he or she saw you speeding, generally, you’re screwed.

   So the fact that an officer does not cite a driver for a violation does not mean the officer cannot appear in court and testify as to the facts of the situation. It does not mean that there will be no evidence of a vehicle code violation that can lead to a lawful arrest.

   Not getting a citation is good luck, but not proof of an illegal arrest.

   A good trial attorney would try to use the lack of a citation in cross examination to get the cop to admit that he/she really didn’t see a speeding violation. After all, can she/he remember the color of the driver’s shirt? The age of the passenger? And if she/he cannot remember those details, how can the officer remember why he/she didn’t write down the fact that you were speeding? Why not? What was it about the situation that made him or her think you did not need to pay a fine for speeding? How can they remember it now with no paperwork?

   In that way, the lack of a citation could be argued to help show the officer is not telling the truth.

3. christopher dahl September 19th, 2008 at 2:44 am

   I was pulled over for a tail light out I don’t remember if the cop read me my rights fist, then he proceed to give me a field test because he thought i was intoxicated. I agreed because i was not drunk. He then took about ten mins after that to run my license and it came up suspended. Now I was convicted of a DUI last Oct, but though my license was fine because my lawyer sent it back to me with some money he owed me. He asked me if it waas suspended i said no and when he told me it was I was shocked. well then I had to take a ride to jail were he then gave me a breathalyzer test and it came up under the legal limit .006. I wanted to know how i could get his records for pulling people over because i don’t think he had pulled people over for a tail light out before. and I felt he was just looking fo a reason to bust me for something because he searched my vehicle and I didn’t consent to it. I live in Tennessee and any info on how I could defend myself would be great. It happened in the town my grandma lives and I am here to work on her house so i am not making any money. I have been here since march. So I have no money and feel that I have no hope. I would like to see the video of my arrest also. right befor he pulled me over he was playing chase with one of his friends i believe becuse he had pulled into the gas station and was on the guys rear. and I had herd him talk about how that guy he was folling was doing 80 in a 55 and nothing was done to him . If you could email me it would be great thank you chris.

   RESPONSE: Chris, your post is very difficult to understand. But here is the bottom line - if you were convicted, your case is over. In general, police do not need to read you your rights when they pull you over - only after you’ve been arrested or, in some cases, formally detained. And if they don’t read you your rights, it’s not an automatic defense. It might seem like it on TV - but that is not how the real world works. And if the officer pulled you over because your tail light was out - it does not matter at all if he had pulled over other people for the same reason. All that matters is whether or not your tail light was working at the time.

4. Michael Sullivan July 31st, 2009 at 7:32 am

   I was in a fender bender with a suspended license in Sacramento California. a police report was made and the officer told me he would report my driving with a suspended license, but he did not give me a citation. i was not in the car at the time and the vehicle was parked and off. i was advised not to drive home and he left after that. i am also a licensed driver in the state of new south wales in australia, and i had that license on me when i was driving. i am wondering what kinda of defense i can make. my original suspension was for felony speeding but i was only given an infraction for it with a fine and 30 day suspension. other than that my driving history is clean, and i have a clean record in all other areas.

   thank you very much,
   michael

5. Christopher Dort July 31st, 2009 at 7:14 pm

   This is a very common driving on a suspended license scenario (or vehicle code section 14601.1 problem). The problem is this - your privilege to drive in California can be suspended even if you never had a CA drivers license. If this happens, it does not matter at all if you have a license from another state or country. You cannot drive in CA.

   And if it was obvious you were driving because you admitted it, or the other driver saw you, you are screwed.

   The fact that the cop did not give you a citation does not mean much, because the district attorney can file charges independently once they get the police report. And when it happens that way, they may issue a warrant to get you into court. You need to check with the court ASAP to see if you have a pending case.

   So the bad news is that you probably do not have a good defense. But my recommendation would be to clear up the CA suspension (go to DMV), then go to court and try to negotiate a reduction to VC 12500a (driving without a valid license). That will reduce the penalties. I typically charge $800-$1200 to handle a VC14601.1 case (with no trial required) and its worth the money to send a pro to get the reduction. And, with an attorney, you can skip going to court yourself. - c. dort

6. jeff November 26th, 2009 at 1:19 am

   chris,
   I’m trying to get one straight answer to this question. If I am issued a ticket by a police officer in the state of Oregon for a DWS, a crime, is the date on the bottom ticket a valid subenoa, or am I legally entitled to a notice in the mail. ie, if I didn’t get the notice, can I still be found in contempt for failure to appear. I have heard that since the cop is not an officer of the court, the court date, and the ticket he gives me is not valid procedure for informing me of a court hearing.
   thanks,
   Jeff

7. Christopher Dort December 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm

   Jeff, this is a wacky question. Sounds like you talked to someone who sounds like they think they know what they are talking about, but who does not actually know anything about what they are talking about.

   First off - a citation (also known as a promise to appear) is not a subpoena. A subpoena is something totally different. In most jurisdictions, a court is not required to send you anything after you sign and receive a citation from a sworn peace officer (also known as a cop). Once you sign, you must appear or face failure to appear charges.

   A police officer is legally authorized to issue a “promise to appear” citation and once signed by the defendant, it is effective. Read your citation where your signature appears - you’ll see your signature binds you to appear in court.

   If you refuse to sign the officer’s promise to appear, he/she can actually handcuff you and take you to jail and then take you to court in person. How’s that for an effective subpoena? A personal escort to court in handcuffs. By signing a citation and promising to appear in court, you are actually avoiding a free ride to jail.

   If you want to experiment to see if a cop can actually force you to go to court, just refuse to sign your next ticket and see what happens.

   Then there is this issue: if you fail to appear on the date and time listed on the citation you signed, you don’t have a “contempt of court problem” - you have a failure to appear problem, which is different. Contempt is a charge of violating a court order. A citation is not a court order.

   A failure to appear is a crime that occurs when you miss a scheduled court date (with or without a court order).

   If you are charged with a failure to appear, and you feel you have a complete defense to the charge (such as you had defective notice of the date), then the correct remedy is to plead not guilty to the charge and demand a jury trial.

   The wrong thing to do if you have a defense to a failure to appear charge is to ignore the problem and pretend like it will never catch up with you.

   But if you signed the citation, and failed to appear on the date listed on the citation, you’d probably lose a trial and get hammered by the judge.

8. Jay April 21st, 2010 at 5:28 pm

   I fail to appear in court and refuse to sign the citation. I fail to appear in court because I did not receive the hearing date in a timely manner. I refuse to sign because I was not speeding, mearly keeping pace with the triffic and not passing anyone. What is my recourse? And what is the statute of limitation for speeding ticket in Delaware?

9. Christopher Dort April 23rd, 2010 at 12:06 am

   Jay, I apologize in advance, but I have to make fun of you in order to teach the rest of the readers a lesson: Refusing to sign a citation is just plain stupid. No wait, it’s Slightly Stoopid. No, wait, that is my favorite band. Stupid is the right word. When you sign a ticket, you are not admitting guilt, you are just promising to appear in court to address the citation. By signing the promise to appear, you prevent an immediate trip to the court via handcuff limo. Why in the world did you think that would help? When you sign a citation, that is not an admission of guilt - so saying that you did not sign the promise to appear because you were innocent is just plain Slightly Stoopid, no wait, that is the band again, I mean stupid. So what happened next? Did you go to jail, or did the cop just laugh at you and walk away? Sounds like he just walked away laughing, because you say you did not have notice of the court date. Earth to Slightly Stupid: Of course you did not have notice of the court date, because you failed to sign and accept the promise to appear.

   Answer to your question: You have no defense. You are luck if they did not take you to jail (yet).

   Moral from this story:

   Refusing to sign a ticket is like refusing to give a breath, blood or urine sample when a police officer pulls you over and asks you to. The refusal only makes matters worse, and only makes sense if you are drunk.

10. Brian Birch July 25th, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    I was pulled over in LA and told I had a suspended license for a failure to appear and had notification by signing the ticket that stated on the back that an FTA could result. The police searched my truck without asking and found nothing. They impounded my truck and cited me for driving on suspended and failure to signal. I asked the officer when did I not signal? and he said when I pulled you over (after he lit me up) I was with my girlfriend who is witness to this. The other part of this is to get my truck back I had to take care of the ticket with the FTA at GC hell to get my licence and get my truck out. Then after vowing to stay out of LA I did not appear on the turn signal suspended ticket (Yes I Know) this resulted in a hold on my licence. Now trying to get legal I thought I could go to court on the matter as I can not afford the huge amount Gc wants as I am disabled GC told me that when I took care of the first ticket to get my truck they set another court date and because they have combined the violations from the different dates to one case number I am not elegible to see the judge on the other case. Is there any way to see the Judge?

11. Christopher Dort July 26th, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    Brian,

    When the police know they are going to impound a vehicle, they always search it, and there is nothing you can do about it. It’s called an “inventory search”, and has been upheld as legal by the supreme court. See my article on Court Approves Impound Searches and Expands Police Powers.

    Now comes the important part of my response: Driving on a suspended license (Vehicle Code section 14601.1) is a misdemeanor crime that carries jail time as a penalty. DRIVING ON A SUSPENDED LICENSE is not traffic court problem, it is a criminal case. You may have received a citation for it that looks like any other traffic ticket, but it is a real crime. And it carries 2 points on your drivers license record (the same as a DUI conviction).

    Because of this, your driving on a suspended license case will not go to a Collection agency after a failure to appear. A Court appearance is not only possible, it is mandatory, because it is a misdemeanor crime. And once you fail to appear on the case, the prosecutor will add a new crime to the case, a failure to appear as a misdemeanor (Vehicle Code section 40508(a).).

    So, you have a different problem then you think you have.

    I always tell people in your situation the same thing, and they never like to hear it because they are in denial - but here it is anyway:

    In my professional opinion, you should not spend one second worrying about your truck in impound right now. You should not spend a single dime trying to get it out, until you: 1) take care of the criminal case that results from a VC14601.1 charge; and 2) get a valid drivers license.

    Your truck is useless without a drivers license. You cannot drive at all. Work on getting out of trouble first, worry about your truck later.

    I strongly recommend that you contact Mr. Mark Gallagher, our local Sponsor Defense Attorney for LA. Send your contact info to him at Email: AttorneyGallagher[at]gmail.com (see also http://www.losangelescountywarrants.com) to get details on how to solve the problem correctly.

    -Chris