California Criminal Lawyer Blog

This is a very weird case. There was no crime, but the guy still got convicted. Say what? Okay, here we go...

The defendant is walking down the middle of the street, minding his own business. The police try to detain him for violation of a Sacramento city ordinance requiring that pedestrians walk
on sidewalks. The defendant runs away. The defendant is charged with resisting an executive officer in the performance of his duties. They don't actually say anywhere what code section this is; I presume it is PC 69.

The Court of Appeal finds that the Sacramento ordinance is preempted by state law, so the defendant wasn't violating any law. We win, right? Of course not.

They say that the defendant's decision to flee dissipated the taint from the illegality, so suppression of the police observations is not appropriate.

Tjis is wrong. Penal COde sec.69 requires that a defendant resist an officer in the performance of his duties. How is the defendant's conduct a violation of PC 69? The legality of the officer's conduct is an element of the crime. (Manual G.,
16 C4th 805.)

Here, the def. pled (?), so I suppose that's why this Court of Appeal doesn't actually note that there's no crime here.

People v. Cox; 2008 DJ DAR 17321; DJ, 11/21/08; C/A 3rd