I am noticing a trend in large cities toward their police force using PC 148 as a means to justify an arrest. The penal code section 148 is widely use for arrest but very seldom pursued in court. This leads me to believe that the police are over stepping their powers and "showing" the public who's in charge instead of doing their job to protect and serve as the public pays them to do.
510 Bail Bond has bonded many clients out of jail where their only charge was for resisting arrest. Lets take a look at what's at play here with regarding to PC 148.
Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer
148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
The above section of the penal code PC148 (a)(1) is so broad that just about any encounter with a police officer, you could be charged with resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. Not showing your drivers license fast enough could be seen as cause for delaying an officer and makes you subject to arrest under PC 148. In February 2014 a
CHP Officer detained an on the job fire fighter at the scene of an accident in hand cuffs citing PC 148 as his justification. The officer ordered the fire fighter to move his truck that was protecting the victim from on coming traffic. When the fire fighter refused he was put in cuffs and placed in the back of the CHP's car. I ask you, "Is this in the best interest of the public. Or does the CHP Officer have a chip on his shoulder?"
Law enforcement has shown time and time again that they can not be trusted with the powers given to them to protect and serve the public. PC 148 needs to be rewritten to protect the public interest first, then applied in such that it truly protect law enforcement from someone "Resisting" an arrest. An arrest form someone for something other than a PC 148 charge.
With regards to the CHP officer notice that section e would have the CHP officer in violation of PC 148 (e).
Here is the rest of PC 148 :
(2) Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes any weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(c) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a), removes or takes a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove or take the firearm by demonstrating that any of the following direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:
(1) The officer's holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.
(2) The firearm was partially removed from the officer's holster by the defendant.
(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.
(4) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant actually touched the firearm.
(5) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the firearm away from the officer who was holding it.
(6) The defendant's fingerprint was found on the firearm or holster.
(7) Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.
(8) In the course of any struggle, the officer's firearm fell and the defendant attempted to pick it up.
(e) A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician. A person may be convicted of multiple violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.
(f) This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in a criminal act.
Bail - It's what we do.
Any Jail Any Bail
www.510Bailbond.com