Are local authorities deliberately not appearing in court after ticketing cyclists for non-existent violations?
I had yet another traffic case yesterday where the officer failed to show up. It was a case I most certainly planned to win, because the cyclist was ticketed for riding to the left of the fog line on the Mt. Lemmon Highway. This officer (Deputy Alvaro Arizpuru) apparently believes that cyclists must ride on the shoulder if one exists. Evidently, a number of these tickets have been issued, and I agreed to take on this case at an extremely reduced rate in order to help put a stop to further ticketing.
After being hired by the cyclist, preparing for trial, and showing up for trial, the case was dismissed because the officer failed to show.
Now, perhaps he was called to some terrible emergency en route to the courthouse. Or perhaps something tragic occurred that prevented him from appearing. I hope not. But it seems to have been happening a lot lately with these tickets, and I am starting to suspect that cyclists are getting ticketed for things the officers wish were illegal, but are not, and which the department then fails to prosecute should the cyclist challenge them.
–Erik Ryberg
September 15th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
“After being hired by the cyclist, preparing for trial, and showing up for trial, the case was dismissed because the officer failed to show.”
School time:
Why did the defendant not force the issue and ask the court to continue to a later date so that the deputy could appear and Pima County could make its case?
September 15th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Because that is not an option, Red Star. The State brings charges; the defendant does not have the power to force them to prosecute those charges, and the judiciary also has the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute. If the deputy could not appear for some reason, it was the State’s job to ask for a continuance. And anyway, what makes you think the deputy would attend at a later date?
September 15th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Shades of Reed Bates’ case in TX except there the officer showed up and despite defense proving that Reed was operating within the law (TX VC 551.103 exceptions b though h), and prosecution conceding that point, Reed was convicted of reckless driving anyway.
But in this case, does AZ have a Official oppression law? If the same LEO keeps writing tickets for things that are not against the law and failing to show for court it would fall under Official Oppression in TX.
September 15th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
The officer is having the situation both ways. You can pay the fine and accept the charge (and any points on your drivers license) or pay the lawyer (perhaps more than the fine). Nice Hobsian choice. We won’t mention time of work etc…. Of course the rider could show up in court and risk the officer being there and loose. There could be some remedy if you can show officers routinely do this. (hopefully less than a civil suit)
September 15th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Thanks, Opus the Poet and Ralph.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Isn’t this commonplace in all kinds of traffic tickets? It’s a common myth that you should always show up for court just in case the cop doesn’t show up.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I sat in on a trial with the very same set of circumstances – the rider got a ticket for riding to the left of the fog line on Mt. Lemmon, and the ticket was issued by the same Deputy. A difference is, this cyclist was hit by a passing car yet he still got a ticket.
Clearly this deputy is ticketing for issues that violate his belief system versus what the law actually says.
September 16th, 2010 at 10:23 am
To clarify – the trial I sat in on was earlier this week. Maybe Deputy Arizpuru is tired of showing up to court to fight these stupid tickets?
September 16th, 2010 at 10:49 am
It seems to take some the work to tease the issues out. One thing that is more or less clear is that if the defendant (assuming defendant doesn’t “take care of” the ticket by paying it in advance of court date — an admission of guilt) doesn’t appear, he runs serious risk of losing the case and also being hit with “failure to appear” (which presumably results in a bench warrant for arrest???)… *regardless* of whether the officer/deputy does *his* sworn duty and appears and sees the process through.
There seems to be an asymmetry of process and power built into the system, to the extent that we can draw valid conclusions from this one case.
It’s easy to see how officers/deputies might be tempted to write tickets willy-nilly, to play casino.
Or perhaps Deputy Alvaro Arizpuru didn’t appear because he just didn’t want to risk another parking ticket…
What to do?
September 16th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Erik…. I’m sorry , I’m at a loss, what statute of title 28 was the rider cited for ….? This does not make sense to me. I have had a number of run ins with TPD, but not with PCSO. Is this guy a lone wolf with a hard on for bikes?
September 16th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Erik. Also, Like TPD the PCSO has an internal affairs div. that deals with out of control employees. I’m sure you are aware of that….. It would seem a letter to his supervisor could be helpful.
September 17th, 2010 at 10:55 am
The PCSO is easily the worst law enforcement entity I have ever dealt with. Their deputies are young, inexperienced and out of control – one of the older sheriffs with the department openly admitted that to me in 2006.
As far as Deputy Arizpuru? Perhaps if he spent more time educating himself on the law and less on learning how to do stupid stunts on his motorcycle there wouldn’t be needless citations such as this.
Then again, (if) Tucson is like any other city, I’m willing to bet motorcycle cops have it out for bicyclists.
September 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
@ Don – the cyclist in the trial I saw was wrongly cited for 28-815(A), the “ride as far right as practicable” statute. This is probably the ticket for Erik’s client, if I were to guess.
September 18th, 2010 at 10:36 am
@ mlemen, thanks, I thought so , but you’re right it makes no sense and is clearly wrong. That’s why I was so confused. This kind of citation is so out of bounds it screams internal affairs complaint. Go get em Erik ! I just wish law enforcement would pay more attention to section D of that same statute. Too many cars operate from with in the bike lanes and Bike riders are at real risk from motorists who violate section D.
September 19th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Erik, please confirm:
As far as I know, a drivers license isn’t required in order to operate a bicycle on the road. So, can’t a bicyclist just state this fact when an officer asks to see their license, without confirming or denying whether they possess one?
Without a positive ID for the bicyclist, a citation can’t be enforced. Would this be an effective strategy to defend against ridiculous citations from Dep. Arizpuru and other LEOs?
September 20th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Hi Jon,
No, you do not need a driver’s license to operate a bicycle, but you must surrender some form of identification when charged with committing an infraction. If you do not, the authorities can detain you until they can figure out who you are.
EBR
September 21st, 2010 at 11:08 am
This might be a total nonsequiter, as it doesn’t apply to a biking incident per se, but I got an unwarranted paper arrest for trespassing many years ago. A cop believed a health club that said I’d been on their property when I had really only been on the public right of way picketting them for bad practices.
I paid 500 bucks to a lawyer to defend me (that still stings). The cop didn’t show up and it was thrown out.
Fast forward fifteen years later – I’m then applying for clearance for a paralegal internship at the Pima County Attorney’s office and the detective calls and asks me about the felony on my record! At first I couldn’t even figure out what he was referring to. Could’ve smacked me with a brick. I now look at all kinds of interactions with the system as having the potential to haunt someone forever. “Thrown out” can be a real misnomer.
September 27th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
I wrote up this one from Flagstaff.
some interesting twists, not only was he ticketed for 815a (as expected), he was also cited for 28-701E (i had to go look that one up!). Juicy stuff in the police report…
http://azbikelaw.org/blog/some-cyclists-just-wont-stay-in-the-gutter/
It had a happy ending
October 4th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] Officials harassing cyclists in Tucson. [...]
October 4th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
[...] Officials harassing cyclists in Tucson. [...]
October 19th, 2010 at 10:35 am
[...] wrote below about my frustration with Pima County Sheriff’s Deputy Alvaro Arizpuru, who ticketed a spate [...]