Trotter v. Baca
Filed 2/6/07 Trotter v. Baca CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
ANGELO TROTTER IV, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEROY D. BACA, as Sheriff, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B188431 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC044384) |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Affirmed.
Angelo Trotter IV, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Thever & Associates, Shan Thever and Ronald A. Chavez, for Defendants and Respondents Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, Deputy Kelly Cruz and County of Los Angeles.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, James M. Humes, Chief Assistant Attorney General, James Schiavenza, Assistant Attorney General, Pamela J. Holmes and Christopher M. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents Commissioner Edward H. Drayer and Judge Robert W. Armstrong.
After appellant Angelo Trotter IV was convicted of the traffic infraction of speeding, he filed a civil complaint against the arresting officer, the sheriff, the County of Los Angeles and the two judicial officers who handled his arraignment and trial. The gravamen of his complaint is that traffic infractions do not rise to the level of public offenses and therefore peace officers cannot make warrantless arrests for such infractions. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgments of dismissal. We find appellant's appeal to be without merit and therefore affirm.[1]
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On appeal from a judgment of dismissal following a demurrer sustained without leave to amend, we assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts, as well as those that are judicially noticeable, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. City of La Habra (2001) 25 Cal.4th 809, 814; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Appellant's verified complaint alleged as follows.
On April 13, 2004, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Deputy Kelly Cruz stopped appellant's vehicle for speeding, in violation of Vehicle Code section 22350.[2] Appellant was cited and released after signing a notice to appear in court.[3] On July 2, 2004, appellant appeared for arraignment before Commissioner Edward H. Drayer. Appellant moved to quash the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending that the traffic infraction did not constitute a crime and that a peace officer may not make a warrantless arrest for noncriminal behavior. Commissioner Drayer denied the motion and also denied appellant's request for a verified complaint. Over appellant's objection, Commissioner Drayer entered a plea of not guilty on appellant's behalf.
On August 11, 2004, appellant appeared for trial before Judge Robert Armstrong, who denied appellant's request for a jury trial. Deputy Cruz testified that while monitoring southbound traffic on Lakewood Boulevard, Highway 19, in her marked patrol car, she observed appellant driving at an excessive speed she estimated to be more than 55 miles per hour. Using her â€
