Cal. App.-San Diego: Mistake of law doesn’t support a stop

Mistake of law doesn’t support a stop. Here, it was for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in a mixed use area with one or two operating businesses on the block that weren’t boarded up, and the ordinance applies only to commercial districts. Defendant was on a bicycle at walking speed talking to a woman who was walking when he was stopped. People v. Campuzano, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1016 (App. Div. San Diego Co. October 9, 2014), Publication Status of this Document has been Changed by the Court from Unpublished to Published November 6, 2014:

This narrow interpretation of the ordinance serves to provide police officers with clear guidance and direction and will appropriately limit police power. Officers should not have carte blanche to stop anyone riding a bicycle on any block with a commercial business establishment, including mix-use blocks where residences and business establishments co-exist on the same block. Similarly, there is no need to generally prevent bicycle riding on sidewalks where a few of the buildings or lots on the block have been boarded up or are closed to all business, or in front of residences within a block that also contains commercial business establishments.

In the instant matter, the officers’ interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 84.09, subdivision (a) was a mistake of law. An officer’s erroneous interpretation of California law or a local ordinance is generally considered unreasonable. (People v. Lopez (1987) 197 Cal. App. 3d 93, 101 [good faith does not excuse erroneous belief that statute prohibiting possession of open container of alcohol in vehicle on highway applies to a vehicle in a parking lot].) Courts usually view mistakes of law as unreasonable because when the wording of a statute or ordinance is reasonably clear, a contrary ruling would provide an incentive to remain ignorant of the law. (People v. Teresinski (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 822, 832.) A traffic stop based on a mistake of law is unreasonable and not subject to the good-faith exception. (People v. White (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 636, 643; see also, In re Arthur J. (1987) 193 Cal. App. 3d 781 [good faith did not excuse an officer’s mistake regarding hours covered by local curfew ordinance].) The officers did not have reasonable cause to stop and detain the defendant based upon San Diego Municipal Code section 84.09, subdivision (a) when their only observation of him was in front of the former Lee’s Auto Repair, a business no longer in operation. The People failed to prove the sidewalk was in front of a “commercial business establishment.”