Trotter

MEMORANDUM ***

In his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 suit, Angelo Trotter sought summary adjudication on his claim that “[b]ecause traffic infractions in California ... are ‘civil in nature,’ peace officers have no authority ‘to make stops, detentions or arrests for alleged civil misconduct.’ ” The district court denied Trotter’s summary adjudication motion, concluding that California police are authorized to stop and arrest suspected offenders. The court thereafter instructed the jury as follows:

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the police defendants. Trotter challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for summary adjudication, and the jury instruction. We affirm.

In California, traffic infractions have not been decriminalized. People v. McKay, 27 Cal.4th 601 , 615 n. 16, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236 , 41 P.3d 59 (2002); Cal.Penal Code § 16 (“Crimes and public offenses include ... [i]nfractions.”). Trotter’s claim that stops and arrests for infractions are unconstitutional because no traffic infraction defendant is entitled to a jury trial lacks merit. See People v. Oppenheimer, 116 Cal.Rptr. 795 , 42 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4, 8-11 (1974) (citing Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88…