what's entrapment and is it legal in Cal. vehicle code?
116857
Entrapement is when the police more or less make you do something. Like say an undercover cop tells you that unless you do some drugs(or anything illegal) he will kill you. That is just an example but something like that. They "entrap" you. And no it is not legal. What you are talking about is not entrapement but you can take that to court and request that the officer that issued the citation to appear and it might get thrown out because he didnt see it.
513587
That's a tough one. You may be able to find some answers at the websites of either your state DOT (CalTrans), the California Transportation Commission (CTC), or the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
878431
If the Officer was driving around in his vehicle it would be illegal. The officer is subject to the same laws as we are not to mention that this is dangerous for anyone else on the road. However if he is parked offside the road of course he can have his lights off while radaring people. \nIt is not entrapment the Officers lights off is not forcing you to speed. I'm sure if he had is headlights on and was offside the road alot of people would still speed by.
106636
Well, the question about blue lights tells me you're not in California.  If you had said what state you are in, someone might have been able to give you a better answer (maybe your state requires law enforcement to use their emergency lights to pull you over....but I doubt it very much).\n\nThat said, not using his lights on you was a very clever tactic that experienced police officers use.  Without the lights, there is probably no issue as to detention (meaning he didn't even need a reason to stop you, because you stopped yourself and he just walked up and began talking to you).  Police officers, just like everyone else in the country, have the right to walk up to someone and just start talking to them - and if the person stands there and engages in conversation, it's all good and anything that comes from it is just as constitutionally sound as if the officer had probable cause to make the stop in the first place.  \n\nHowever, if the officer pulled in behind you and blocked your ability to leave - even if you didn't try or want to - then it very likely will be considered a detention by the courts, and will require the appropriate constitutional factors to justify the detention.  You said the officer arranged for another cop car to block your way, so that would likely be considered a detention by the courts.  However, the officer is claiming you were speeding, so assuming he can prove that to the court's satisfaction, he could have called in a hundred cars to block you in and it wouldn't matter...blue lights or no.
866956
Don't know specifically for California, but in some states, Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence, is illegal anywhere.  Many of the laws are non-specific, as to the place.
283867
Most states have their laws and codes available online for free.  One of the best places for you to start is Findlaw.com.    You can even do limited research on case law there.\n\nHowever, you seem to be looking for a particular statute.  As an attorney in California, I think I recognize the code section you are talking about.  California arranges its laws by subject title (i.e. Vehicle Code, Civil Code, etc.).  In this case, I believe you are referring the Health & Safety Code Section Section 11377.  I have post a link below where you can read that section.  \n\nIf you are referring to this California law, it deals with possession of certain any controlled substances.  One of the penalties include county jail of not more than year.  You may read the entire section at the link below.
797785
Any time the officer has a reason to have you step out of the car, the officer can perform a limited search of you and your vehicle. That reason can be something as simple as you acting nervous, moving around a lot, suspicious hand movements, aggressive attitude, or even if the officer makes it a standard procedure on every traffic stop he/she makes.\n\nThe U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the officer has a right to ensure his/her own safety when dealing with any member of the public for any legal reason. That means any time that an officer comes into contact with a person on any type of police call: suspicous person, domestic disturbance, disorderly conduct, traffic violation, etc.\n\nAccording to the Court, the officer can conduct a "pat down" search of the person, checking for weapons. This means the officer can pat down the outside of person's clothing feeling for weapons. If an officer feels anything that, based on his/her training and experience, could possibly be a weapon, drugs, or other illegal item, the officer can then go inside the pocket to determine the true nature of that item. They are looking for weapons, but if they find anything else, it'll stick in court.\n\nThe officer is also allowed to conduct what is referred to as a "wing-span" search of the vehicle to check for weapons. This search covers any area of the vehicle that could be reached by any occupant of the vehicle. If there is more than one person in the car, this will pretty much cover the entire passenger compartment of the car. It does not, however, include a locked glove box or the trunk, unless the inside of the trunk was accessible to a person inside the car (such as if the back seat was laid forward, leading into the trunk). The officer is checking for weapons, but if they find anything else illegal, it will stick in court.\n\nSo to answer your question more simply, yes, a police officer can search your car.
249086
You can start with Penal Code section 602 et. seq., which you can find here:\n\nhttp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html\n\nHowever, it's possible that not all law related to the issue of trespassing will be found there, there might be other laws (such as in the Education Code) that also deal with the subject.  If you have a specific situation in mind, you might do better to post a question about your situation and see what kind of answers you get.
445512
In jurisprudence, entrapment is a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. However, when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, such as in the widely held misconception that policemen must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer.
218416
I don't know about federal, but it's definitely against state laws, the D.O.T. can tell if your running it in on road vehicle , because of the red dye they put in it, to detect if someone is using it illegally.
148877
He's asking about California.  \n\nThe question is nonsense, however.  Section 1538.5 of the Penal Code is the statutory mechanism that allows unlawfully obtained evidence to be suppressed (kept out of court).  A 1538.5 hearing is held at the request of the defendant to determine if the government followed "the rules" when it obtained evidence to be used against a defendant in a criminal case.\n\nFor example, if a defendant is charged with possession of drugs based on a search of his person, the defense may file a 1538.5 motion to challenge the search.  The defendant may take the position that the search was unlawful and ask the Court to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful search.  \n\nIn Danny's case, a 1538.5 motion might be filed to contest the legality of the checkpoint, the observations of his sobriety made by the officer who initially detained him, the observations made by the officer who evaluated him and ultimately arrested him, and/or the function of the breath machine or other chemical testing procedure.  There might even be more issues, but those are the significant ones.\n\nSo while the question really doesn't make sense, it at least shows the poster has an idea of what's going on.  A 1538.5 hearing is used to determine if the government did the things it's allowed to do by law and didn't violate anyone's constitutional rights.\n\nDanny - see my other answer to your first question.  I applaud your interest in safeguarding your rights.  However, if you acknowledge (even if only to yourself) that you were driving in violation of the laws in California concerning DUI (driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of .08% or higher) then I'm left feeling like you need to accept that you potentially could have killed someone (or yourself) that night, and take your lumps.  If you think you can get off on a technicality, go for it if you want.  But really...you know if you were guilty or not, no matter what the legal beagles end up saying, and if you should be punished for making a bad decision, then take it and move on.  I know it's expensive and I know it has a *profound* impact on your life...but the impact you might have had on other lives that night makes your concerns look childish.\n\nEDIT 2/12/06: James F...I know, but that does not stop defendants from filing supppression motions against them.
810221
It is not legal, but not illegal as long as you cannot and are not seen. If you were stopped for any traffic violation or had an accident, you would receive a ticket and possibly go to jail for indecent exposure, since at a minimum you would have to roll down the window.\n\nTake care,\nTroy
100461
It's "misdemeanor."\n\nAnd although I hate doing this, here's the answer to your question:\n\n11366.8.  (a) Every person who possesses, uses, or controls a false\ncompartment with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle, or transport\na controlled substance within the false compartment shall be punished\nby imprisonment in a county jail for a term of imprisonment not to\nexceed one year or in the state prison.\n   (b) Every person who designs, constructs, builds, alters, or\nfabricates a false compartment for, or installs or attaches a false\ncompartment to, a vehicle with the intent to store, conceal, smuggle,\nor transport a controlled substance shall be punished by\nimprisonment in the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.\n\n   (c) The term "vehicle" means any of the following vehicles without\nregard to whether the vehicles are private or commercial, including,\nbut not limited to, cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, boats, ships,\nyachts, and vessels.\n   (d) The term "false compartment" means any box, container, space,\nor enclosure that is intended for use or designed for use to conceal,\nhide, or otherwise prevent discovery of any controlled substance\nwithin or attached to a vehicle, including, but not limited to, any\nof the following:\n   (1) False, altered, or modified fuel tanks.\n   (2) Original factory equipment of a vehicle that is modified,\naltered, or changed.\n   (3) Compartment, space, or box that is added to, or fabricated,\nmade, or created from, existing compartments, spaces, or boxes within\na vehicle.\n\nSo in other words, if these facts apply to the case you're talking about, the person can be charged with 11366.8 HS.  \n\nYour question is really unclear, though:\n\nDo *you* want to make a complaint about someone you think is guilty of that crime?  Contact your local law enforcement agency.\n\nDo you want to know what the mechanics of someone being charged is (how it actually takes place)?  Either the cop writes a ticket or makes an arrest, and the case is reviewed by a prosecutor.  If the prosecutor believes the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then charges are filed in court and a trial is held.\n\nIf you want to know something else, you've gotta ask a better question.
677598
Grand theft in CA is anything over $400. Check CA penal code 487.
63193
In California, the arresting person need not even be a citizen.  It's technically referred to as a "private person's arrest," rather than a citizen's arrest for that reason.
583504
What State ? I knew someone here in CA who did that for awhile before they realized it's illegal.
412094
its legal to install nos in your car just not to use it on the street, but it's legal to use it at the drag strip etc..