The ongoing debates surrounding policing practices and concerns about unwarranted arrests have brought issues like racial profiling to the forefront. However, attempting to evade a police officer during a traffic stop or any encounter with law enforcement in response to these concerns is not a solution to these problems. This act is considered a criminal offense and can lead to severe legal consequences, including arrest, hefty fines, imprisonment, and the suspension of driving privileges.

Moreover, fleeing from the police is not just dangerous for the individual attempting to evade capture. It also poses significant risks to other road users. High-speed pursuits can result in accidents, injuries, and, tragically, even fatalities.

In California, evading a police officer falls under Vehicle Code 2800.1. While it could appear as a response to concerns about policing practices and potential overreach, it is neither a safe nor legal way to address these matters. If you find yourself arrested for evading a police officer in Bakersfield, seek legal counsel. The California Criminal Lawyer Group is here to provide the assistance you need.

Evading a Police Officer Under California Law

Under VC 2800.1, it is a crime to knowingly attempt to evade a police officer in pursuit, whether in a car or on a bicycle. This includes clear instances of evasion, such as:

  • Engaging in a high-speed chase to avoid arrest for a committed offense and
  • Simple actions that appear harmless. For instance, if a police officer observes that your left taillight is not functioning correctly and signals for you to pull over by flashing their lights, but you choose to continue driving just a few blocks to reach your home, this can also be considered an act of evasion under the law.

Section (a) of this law pertains to evading an officer who is in a motor vehicle. According to this law, if a person intentionally attempts to evade a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle, he/she could face misdemeanor charges.

Several specific conditions relating to the police officer’s car must be met for this offense to apply:

  • The pursuing vehicle must be equipped with at least one visible red lamp in the front, and the person must either see or reasonably have seen this lamp.
  • The car must bear distinctive markings.
  • The pursuing officer's motor vehicle must activate a siren as needed.
  • A peace officer must operate the vehicle, and that peace officer must be wearing a distinctive uniform.

When police officers use bicycles, evading an officer pursuing you on a bicycle remains a criminal offense. As outlined in Section (b), it is a misdemeanor violation when an individual, while operating a motor vehicle, willfully attempts to evade a pursuing peace officer on a bicycle.

Distinct conditions apply to this offense, separate from those in Section (a). These include:

  • The pursuing peace officer's bicycle must display distinctive markings.
  • A peace officer wearing a distinguishing uniform must operate the officer's bicycle.
  • The peace officer must issue a verbal command to halt.
  • A horn on the peace officer's bicycle must emit a sound of at least 115 decibels.
  • The peace officer must signal with their hand for the person to stop.
  • The defendant must be aware or reasonably should have been aware of the horn, verbal command, and hand signal but refused to comply with the directive to stop.

Elements of the Crime

Like in all criminal proceedings, prosecutors are responsible for proving their case. They must provide evidence establishing the following aspects of the crime and prove them beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • A law enforcement officer was actively pursuing you in a motor vehicle.
  • You were also operating a motor vehicle and knowingly attempted to escape or elude the officer with the intent to evade them.
  • The following conditions were met:
    • The officer's vehicle displayed at least one visible red lamp from the front.
    • The officer's vehicle sounded a siren as reasonably necessary
    • You either directly saw or reasonably should have seen this red lamp.
    • The officer's vehicle was clearly marked as an official law enforcement vehicle.
    • The officer was attired in a distinctive police uniform.

Note: Whether or not a police officer was actively "pursuing you" is a determination left to the judgment of a judge or jury. This determination hinges on a comprehensive assessment of all the facts in the particular case. The same principle applies to establishing whether you had the intent to evade the police officer.

  • Acting Willfully

Acting willfully means engaging in a deliberate action.

When a person acts willfully, his/her conduct is purposeful and conscious, typically intending to attain a particular result. This term suggests that an individual acted with intent, irrespective of whether there was a valid excuse or justification.

Importantly, the individual does not need to have had intentions to:

  1. Violate the law.
  2. Secure any personal advantage or
  3. Cause harm to another individual.

  • Distinctively Marked Cars and a Distinguishing Uniform

Per Vehicle Code 2800.1, there is a clear-cut requirement: the pursuing police car must bear distinctive markings, and the pursuing police officer must be outfitted in a distinctive uniform. These requirements are in place to guarantee that law enforcement officers are easily recognizable by the public while carrying out their responsibilities.

A police vehicle is deemed distinctly marked when it sports noticeable features readily identifiable by other drivers. These features include a siren, a red lamp, and at least one distinctive characteristic that sets it apart from non-law enforcement vehicles.

A distinctive uniform is the attire adopted by a law enforcement agency to distinguish its members. The uniform does not adhere to any specific level of formality. However, solely wearing a badge, without additional distinctive elements, falls short of meeting this requirement.

  • A Peace Officer

Though in most cases, VC 2800.1 relates to police officers, the law's wording addresses peace officers. Therefore, you can face charges for violating this law if another peace officer is involved other than a police officer. Section 830 of Chapter 4.5 of the California Legal Code defines the criteria for what a peace officer is.

A peace officer is a public servant vested, by law, with the authority to effectuate an arrest or issue a citation for a violation of the law. Notably, peace officers in California have broad powers. It includes the authority to employ force when necessary, conduct searches and seizures, and detain individuals.

Penal Code Section 830.1 identifies various categories of peace officers, including:

  • Sheriffs and their deputies.
  • Police officers.
  • Marshals and their deputies.
  • Port wardens and port police officers.
  • Inspectors and investigators employed within the office of a district attorney.
  • Members of the California Highway Patrol.
  • Members of the Department of Corrections.
  • Duly authorized federal employees actively engaged in enforcing relevant state or local laws on property owned or controlled by the United States government.

Fighting Charges for Evading a Police Officer

Evading a police officer, while categorized as a misdemeanor, carries notable repercussions. Engaging the services of a defense attorney is necessary for adeptly addressing these charges. Here are several defense strategies they can use to secure a favorable outcome:

  • Lack of Intent

Intent is pivotal in determining guilt in cases involving evading a police officer. Demonstrating a lack of intent can be an ideal defense strategy. When you assert the absence of intent, you claim that you did not consciously attempt to evade law enforcement.

For example, You are cruising down a highway with a malfunctioning taillight, unaware that a police officer behind you has activated their lights and sirens to signal a stop. Amid the bustling traffic or possibly faulty car radio, you remain oblivious to the sirens and the flashing lights.

You continue your journey, assuming everything is normal until you reach your destination or a better-lit area, where you decide to pull over to inspect your vehicle. You only see the police car behind you and realize the officer was trying to pull you over.

In this scenario, there is no intent to evade the police. You genuinely had no awareness of the police's presence or his/her attempts to stop you. This lack of intent can serve as a valid defense against charges of evading a police officer.

You need credible evidence or arguments to support your assertion of lacking intent. This could entail presenting facts demonstrating a legitimate reason for your actions or establishing your unawareness of the police's presence and their efforts to stop you.

  • Improper Procedure

If a police officer deviated from proper procedure when attempting to pull over your vehicle, it could serve as a valid defense.

For example, if an officer used an unconventional gesture or signal at a stoplight, leaving you uncertain about whether you were being pulled over, this ambiguity could be a justifiable defense.

In this context, you could assert that the officer's actions did not align with established protocol, resulting in your confusion regarding his/her intentions. If your lack of understanding about being pulled over was reasonable, it could bolster your defense against charges of evading a police officer.

Furthermore, according to the statute, a pursuing officer must have at least one flashing red light on during the pursuit or wear his/her uniform. If this requirement was not met, you can challenge the accusation by stating that there was no flashing red light, reinforcing your defense.

  • You Were Faced With an Emergency

The "involved in an emergency" defense is applicable when a driver's actions result from an immediate and genuine emergency. Take, for example, the urgency of rushing your wife, who is in labor, to the hospital. In this case, your attorney will argue that the impending childbirth required prioritization over stopping for the police.

When using this defense, your attorney needs to establish the following:

  1. Legitimate emergency — Provide tangible evidence or documentation confirming the existence of a legitimate emergency. This could include medical records, witness statements, or other forms of proof attesting to the impending childbirth.
  2. Proportionate response — Establish that your response to the emergency was proportionate and reasonable given the circumstances. Your actions should not have been excessive or hazardous. Your actions should have represented a necessary response to the critical situation.
  3. You did not have safer alternatives — Demonstrate that, at that particular moment, no reasonable and safer alternatives were available to address the emergency. Stopping immediately could not have been a safe or viable choice due to the urgency of the medical situation.

Note: The success of this defense hinges on the specific case details and the evidence you provide to support the claim of a genuine emergency.

  • No Willful Action on Your Part

Under this defense, you argue that your actions were not deliberately attempting to evade a police officer. It asserts that your conduct lacked intent and does not meet the criteria for evading a police officer as outlined by the law.

Your attorney could argue that your behavior arose from confusion, misunderstanding, or other non-willful factors. For example, you could have believed you were adhering to the law. The defense could stress that your actions did not resemble typical evading behavior, such as engaging in a high-speed chase or deliberately attempting to flee. Instead, your conduct indicated a lack of intent to evade.

Note: While closely related, the no willful act and the lack of intent defenses focus on slightly different aspects of a criminal charge.

Under the no-willful act defense, the central argument is that your actions were unintentional. This indicates you did not consciously intend to evade the police. This suggests that your actions were misunderstood, accidental, or influenced by non-deliberate factors.

Conversely, the lack of intent defense has a broader scope. It questions whether you possessed the necessary intent or mental state for the alleged crime. In the context of evading a police officer, it challenges whether you had the intent to evade or if your actions originated from an innocent or lawful reason.

In essence, these defenses address intent, but the no-willful act defense is more specific. It focuses on the intent to evade, while the lack of intent defense addresses broader aspects of intent about the alleged crime.

Penalties of a Vehicle Code 2800.1 Violation

Evading a police officer is a misdemeanor violation. A conviction will result in the following penalties:

  • A jail sentence of up to one year.
  • A fine of up to $1,000.

Expunging a Vehicle Code 2800.1

A criminal conviction can have far-reaching consequences beyond just serving time in jail. The impact of a conviction affects the following areas:

  • Employment — Many employers perform background checks, and a criminal conviction can hinder job prospects. Certain professions and industries have strict rules regarding individuals with certain convictions.
  • Professional licensing — Some professions require licenses, and authorities may deny or revoke them based on criminal convictions, restricting career opportunities.
  • Housing — Landlords often scrutinize applicants' criminal histories, and a conviction can lead to rental denials or even eviction, impacting housing stability.
  • Education — Certain educational institutions may refuse admission or financial aid to individuals with specific criminal convictions.
  • Social Stigma — A criminal record often carries a social stigma, impacting personal relationships and community standing.

Given these potential hardships, it is no surprise that many individuals seek expungement to mitigate the impact of a criminal conviction.

Expungement under Penal Code 1203.4 can provide substantial relief. To qualify, you must have successfully completed probation related to the offense for which you seek expungement. This typically involves meeting all probation requirements, for example, paying fines, fulfilling community service, attending mandatory programs, and avoiding new offenses.

Additionally, you should not be on probation, facing criminal charges, or incarcerated when applying for expungement. Maintaining a clean record during the application process is crucial to meeting the eligibility criteria for expungement.

Crimes Related to Evading a Police Officer

Crimes associated with evading a police officer frequently revolve around attempts to escape from law enforcement, typically occurring during a traffic stop or pursuit. These include the following:

  • Felony Reckless Evading

Felony reckless evading, known as a VC 2800.2 violation, is a grave legal violation. It applies when an individual deliberately tries to escape from a pursuing police officer, displaying a reckless disregard for the safety of others. This offense frequently involves high-speed chases and poses substantial threats to public safety.

Prosecutors must prove the following to secure a conviction:

  1. You knowingly attempted to escape from a pursuing law enforcement officer while operating a motor vehicle.
  2. You drove with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of other individuals or their property. This means not only attempting to evade the officer but doing so in a manner that completely disregards the well-being of others or their belongings.

Note: The presence of wanton disregard for life as a key element differentiates felony reckless evading (VC 2800.2) from the lesser offense of evading a police officer (VC 2800.1). VC 2800.1 does not require proof of reckless disregard for safety.

Penalties if Convicted of Felony Reckless Evading

A violation of VC 2800.2 is a wobbler. You could face misdemeanor or felony charges, depending on your criminal past and the facts of your case.

If convicted on misdemeanor charges, the likely penalties will be:

  • Summary probation.
  • At least six months and a maximum of one year in jail.
  • A maximum fine of $1,000.

If convicted on felony charges, the likely penalties will be:

  • Formal probation.
  • 16 months, two or three years in prison.
  • A maximum fine of $10,000.

Note: Despite being pursued by multiple police vehicles while attempting to evade law enforcement, California courts, in the case of People v. Garcia, have established that you can only face one count of evading a police officer. This legal precedent ensures that you will not be confronted with multiple counts of evading a police officer for a single evasion incident. Nevertheless, the potential severity of your sentencing, should you be convicted, may hinge on the unique circumstances of your case.

  • Evading Causing Injury or Death

VC 2800.3 deals with cases where someone while trying to escape from the police in a motor vehicle, ends up causing injury or death to another person. This is a serious offense because it means that the person knowingly tried to get away from law enforcement, even if it meant putting others' safety at risk.

In cases of evading causing injury or death, prosecutors must establish two critical elements:

  1. You evaded a peace officer while operating a car.
  2. Your evasion of the officer directly led to causing serious bodily injury or death to another individual.

Penalties if Convicted of a VC 2800.3 Violation

  • Evading an Officer and Causing Injury

Evading an officer and causing injury is a wobbler offense.

If you are found guilty of a misdemeanor violation, you could face the following penalties:

  1. Summary probation.
  2. A maximum of one year in jail.
  3. A fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000.

However, if you are convicted of a felony charge, the consequences become more severe, such as:

  1. Formal probation.
  2. A prison sentence of 3, 5, or 7 years years.
  3. A fine ranging between $2,000 and $10,000.

  • Evading an Officer and Causing Death

Evading an officer and causing death is a felony offense. A conviction results in the following penalties:

  1. A prison sentence of 4, 6, or 10 years.
  2. A fine ranging between $2,000 and $10,000.

Find a Criminal Defense Attorney Near Me

If you or a loved one are facing charges for evading a police officer in Bakersfield, seeking legal representation is crucial. An experienced attorney can guide and safeguard your rights and interests throughout the legal proceedings. Do not hesitate to contact the California Criminal Lawyer Group to initiate discussions about your case and explore potential defense strategies.

We have a wealth of experience in handling cases related to evading a police officer. We will meticulously scrutinize the facts surrounding your case, leveraging our extensive knowledge and expertise to craft a tailored legal strategy to address your unique circumstances. Whether it involves challenging the presented evidence, engaging in negotiations with prosecutors, or representing you in court, we will handle it all in pursuit of the best possible outcome for your case. Contact us today at 661-750-8230.