Evading a police officer is a serious offense with significant consequences. Attempting to flee or elude law enforcement could initially seem exciting, but the potential repercussions are severe and extensive. In California, evading a police officer is addressed under Vehicle Code Section 2800.1. This statute pertains to the intentional act of willfully fleeing or attempting to evade a pursuing police officer using a motor vehicle while carrying out their duties. The offense is taken seriously due to the inherent dangers associated with these actions.

Individuals engaging in this behavior face various penalties, including fines, probation, imprisonment, and other legal consequences. California law establishes a clear legal framework to prosecute those who attempt to evade law enforcement, particularly in high-speed pursuits involving motor vehicles.

Fresno attorneys at California Criminal Lawyer Group break down the offense below.

Evading a Police Officer, Per VC 2800.1

You violate Vehicle Code Section 2800.1 if you operate a motor vehicle intending to evade law enforcement. Per the law, it is a crime when you willfully flee or attempt to elude a pursuing police officer's car or bicycle.

However, the following conditions must be met:

For evading a police officer in a motor vehicle:

  1. The police officer's vehicle must sound a siren as reasonably necessary.
  2. The police officer's car must display a minimum of one lighted red lamp, which is visible from the front, and you must either see or reasonably should have seen the lamp.
  3. The police officer's car must be distinctively marked.
  4. The police officer's car must be operated by a police officer, as defined under PC 830. Additionally, he/she must have a distinctive uniform.

For evading a police officer on a bicycle:

  1. The police officer must issue a verbal command for you to stop.
  2. The police officer's bicycle must be distinctively marked.
  3. Like the requirements of a police officer in a vehicle, officers operating bicycles are police officers as defined under PC 830. He/she must be wearing a distinctive uniform.
  4. The police officer must sound a horn, producing a sound of at least 115 decibels.
  5. The police officer must give you a hand signal commanding you to stop.
  6. You must be aware of or reasonably should have known of the horn, verbal command, and hand signal but refuse to comply with the order to stop.

Other than proving that the police officers or police officers met the above provisions, prosecutors must prove additional elements. Only then will a jury return a guilty verdict. Prosecutors must establish that:

  1. A police officer operating a motor vehicle actively pursued you.
  2. You were driving a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.
  3. You willfully fled from or attempted to elude the pursuing police officer.
  4. Your actions were driven by a specific intent to evade the pursuing police officer.

The judge or jury usually decides whether:

  1. A police officer actively pursued someone and
  2. If the individual had the specific intent to evade the officer,

This decision is reached by comprehensively examining all relevant facts and evidence presented during the case.

Let us look at each of the elements in detail.

  • Willfully

Acting willfully means purposefully engaging in an action with clear intent. It involves consciously and voluntarily deciding to carry out a specific behavior or course of action. In legal terms, an act performed willfully is one that you knowingly and intentionally undertake without being coerced or acting out of ignorance.

Note: Acting willfully places no legal requirement on you to have the intent to:

  1. Hurt someone else.
  2. Break the law, or
  3. Gain an advantage.

  • Distinctively Marked and Distinctive Uniform

A vehicle or bicycle is distinctly marked when it has noticeable features for other drivers, such as:

  1. A visible red lamp.
  2. An audible siren, alerting others to its presence.
  3. At least one other unique feature that distinguishes it from non-law enforcement vehicles. This implies that law enforcement vehicles and bicycles should exhibit distinct and recognizable characteristics, like specific colors, logos, or symbols. It ensures clear differentiation from other cars or bicycles.

Officers' clothing distinguishes and identifies them. The uniform features a unique design to set them apart from the public. This enhances visibility for easy recognition. The uniform incorporates specific insignias, badges, or features to communicate the officers' roles.

While badges are essential, they are generally inadequate for a distinct and identifiable uniform. A complete uniform necessitates a combination of clothing features, insignias, and identifiers.

Evading a Police Officer With Wanton Disregard for Safety

If you attempt to evade a pursuing peace officer in violation of Section 2800.1 and drive the pursued vehicle with deliberate or wanton disregard for the safety of property or persons. You will violate VEH 2800.2.

A willful or wanton disregard for the safety of property or persons includes driving while fleeing or attempting to flee from a pursuing peace officer. During this time, three or more violations with a traffic violation point count occur, or property damage occurs.

What Happens if the Fleeing Results in Serious Bodily Injury or Death to Another Person?

Engaging in willful flight or attempting to elude a pursuing peace officer contrary to Section 2800.1 and causing grave bodily injury to any person would violate VEH 2800.3(a). This breach has distinct penalties and consequences, as specified in this section. This crime is also called the reckless evading of a police officer.

Per Penal Code 243(f)(4), a serious bodily injury is bodily harm with a substantial risk of death, prolonged unconsciousness, severe physical pain, or protracted and obvious disfigurement. It also includes broken bones and impairment of a functional body organ.

Further, if your actions led to another person's demise, you will be subject to penalties outlined under VEH 2800.3(b).

Driving Against Traffic While Evading a Police Officer

If past actions are anything to go by, individuals will likely drive against traffic to avoid police officers.

If you deliberately drive against traffic while evading law enforcement officers, you will face specific penalties detailed in VEH 2800.4.

Defenses You Can Use if Charged With Evading a Police Officer

You should enlist the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney. They will play a vital role in developing a winning strategy tailored to the specific details of your case. With their expertise in criminal law and extensive experience, a skilled defense attorney will work closely with you to analyze the facts, identify legal defenses, and navigate the complexities of the legal system.

Here is a look at some of the viable defenses in an evading police officer case:

  • Lack of an Intent to Evade a Police Officer

You can stress the absence of intent to evade as a defense strategy. A criminal defense attorney can help you shape and present evidence, witness testimonies, or other factors supporting this defense. Their goal is to challenge the prosecution's assertion of a specific intent to flee.

For example, You were driving on a highway, unaware that a police officer had initiated a pursuit with lights and sirens. Due to traffic noise, you fail to notice the signals and continue driving at a steady speed. The police officer interprets this delayed response as an attempt to evade.

Upon being pulled over, your genuine surprise and explanation that you did not hear or notice the police signals until later in the pursuit can serve as compelling evidence. This lack of awareness and immediate response supports the argument that there was no intentional evasion but rather an authentic lack of perception.

In your defense, presenting factors like environmental conditions, your state of mind, or external influences on perception can demonstrate that there was no willful intent to evade law enforcement.

  • You Did Not Act Willfully

Disputing the prosecution's case by asserting the lack of deliberate actions on your part is another defense strategy.

Imagine a scenario where you are behind the wheel, and law enforcement initiates a pursuit without indicating your willful attempt to evade. Here, a defense attorney can argue that the absence of deliberate action becomes a pivotal factor.

The defense contends that there are no grounds for alleging intentional evasion without evidence of a willful act. This absence of intent stands out as a crucial point in challenging the charges.

Several situations can illustrate a lack of deliberateness to evade a pursuing peace officer. For example:

  1. Sudden mechanical issues with your vehicle leading to unintended behavior, like problems with brakes, steering, or acceleration.
  2. Misinterpretation of signals given by law enforcement, where you believed the calls were not directed at you or were intended for another vehicle.
  3. Actions consistent with following traffic rules, where any deviation from expected behavior was unintentional.

In each of these instances, the defense could argue that the circumstances surrounding the pursuit were not driven by intentional evasion but rather by factors beyond your control or misunderstanding.

  • Police Officers Did Not Flash their Lights

The absence of flashing lights is pivotal. You can focus on it as a defense strategy. By highlighting the lack of visible indicators, specifically at least one flashing red light, attorneys aim to challenge the prosecution's case and establish a legitimate claim of unawareness regarding law enforcement presence.

Picture a scenario where you are driving, and a police officer initiates a pursuit without activating flashing lights. In this case, your lack of awareness of law enforcement presence can be presented as a genuine factor in your defense.

The defense contends that without the customary flashing lights signaling a pursuit, there was no reason for you to recognize the police officer's attempt to pull you over. The absence of visual indication becomes a focal point in the defense's effort to assert that there was no intentional evasion.

In this case, you need evidence like surveillance footage or dash-cam footage to support your case.

  • You Were Responding to an Emergency

In emergencies, people naturally concentrate on addressing the immediate crisis, often without the luxury of engaging with signals from law enforcement. The urgency and intensity of these situations can lead to behaviors that could be misunderstood, especially in the context of a police pursuit.

When emergencies unfold, individuals prioritize responding to the crisis over promptly acknowledging or complying with law enforcement directives. This instinctive reaction can inadvertently be seen as an attempt to evade a police officer, especially if the officers are unaware of the ongoing emergency.

Recognizing the unpredictable nature of human reactions during emergencies is crucial. This defense strategy aims to underscore the genuine nature of the emergency. It emphasizes that actions were driven by the need to address a critical situation rather than a deliberate intent to evade law enforcement.

For example, consider situations involving urgently transporting a pregnant woman to the hospital. These scenarios are prone to be misunderstood during a police pursuit. Drivers focus solely on reaching the hospital swiftly. The intense nature of these emergencies can lead to actions that, while entirely motivated by the situation's urgency, could be misconstrued as evasive behavior during a police pursuit. In these cases, the priority rightly centers around the well-being of the pregnant woman and the immediate need for medical attention.

  • Improper Police Procedures

The improper police procedure defense challenges law enforcement actions during a pursuit. It alleges inconsistencies with established protocols or legal standards. This strategy exposes procedural flaws or misconduct, aiming to question the legitimacy of charges related to evading law enforcement.

Consider a scenario where an officer at a stoplight makes eye contact and gestures for you to pull over. However, the communication is unclear. You are unsure if the gestures signal you to proceed or pull over. In this context, your attorney could argue that the officer's non-verbal signal at a stoplight, lacking precise and audible cues, deviates from standard and lawful police practices for initiating a pursuit.

The defense contends that the officer's actions were ambiguous and did not adhere to recognized procedures for starting a pursuit. If accepted, protocols mandate explicit signals like lights and sirens. This defense asserts that the officer's unclear communication makes the charges regarding evading law enforcement uncertain.

Penalties for Evading a Police Officer

The penalties vary depending on the facts of the case. Here is a look at the penalties:

  • Violations of Vehicle Code 2800.1

Evading a police officer under VEH 2800.1 is a misdemeanor violation. A conviction results in the following penalties:

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

  • Violations of Vehicle Code 2800.2

Evading a police officer with wanton disregard for property or people is a wobbler offense. You can face misdemeanor or felony penalties upon your conviction.

For a misdemeanor violation, you will face:

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

For a felony violation, you will face:

  1. A prison sentence of up to one year.
  2. A maximum fine of $10,000.

  • Violations of Vehicle Code 2800.3

When you cause another person to sustain a serious bodily injury when evading police officers, you commit a wobbler offense.

Misdemeanors are punishable by:

  1. A jail sentence of up to one year.
  2. A maximum fine of $2,000.

Felonies are punishable by:

  1. A prison sentence of 3, 5, or 7 years.
  2. A maximum fine of $10,000.

If the willful flight results in the death of a person, you will face felony charges. A conviction is punishable by:

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

  • Violations of Vehicle Code 2800.4

Willfully driving against traffic on a highway while fleeing police officers is a wobbler offense.

Misdemeanors are punishable by:

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

Felonies are punishable by:

  1. A prison sentence of up to one year.
  2. A maximum fine of $10,000.

What Counts as One Count of Evading a Police Officer?

We look at the People v. Garcia case for a count of evading a police officer.

In examining the issue of what constitutes a single count of evading a police officer under VEH 2800.2, the court established a crucial legal principle. It emphasized that the appropriateness of charging multiple counts depends on whether the actus reus or the wrongful act prohibited by the statute has occurred more than once.

In the context of a 30-minute continuous course of conduct involving the defendant evading the police, the court rejected the prosecutor's argument that each count could be grounded in the involvement of different officers or police vehicles. The court underscored the notion that the defendant's culpability for felony evading should not be contingent upon the quantity of police cars dispatched. Ultimately, the court concluded that, notwithstanding the participation of multiple police officers and vehicles, the defendant could only be found guilty of a single count of evading a police officer under Section 2800.2.

This determination was rooted in the understanding that the actus reus, constituting a continuous course of driving, shaped the unitary nature of the offense under the statute.

Immigration Consequences for Evading a Police Officer Conviction

A conviction for evading a police officer is not categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under U.S. immigration law. CIMTs generally pertain to offenses characterized by dishonesty, fraud, or morally reprehensible behavior.

Evading a police officer involves attempting to elude law enforcement during a pursuit. It lacks inherent elements of moral turpitude. Crimes falling under CIMTs typically exhibit intentional fraud or morally culpable aspects.

Hence, you will not encounter deportation, reentry denial, or other immigration repercussions typically linked to crimes involving moral turpitude due to a conviction for evading a police officer.

Impact of a Conviction on Gun Rights

Individuals convicted of felonies in California encounter restrictions on their Second Amendment rights. This restriction, stemming from federal and state laws, involves prohibiting firearm possession for those with felony convictions.

Federal regulations, like the Gun Control Act, specifically bar individuals convicted of felonies from owning firearms. California, in alignment with these federal restrictions, imposes additional limitations on gun ownership for felons.

In the state, a felony conviction results in the forfeiture of the right to own, possess, or acquire firearms.

Violating firearm restrictions for felons results in a distinct criminal offense, bringing forth additional legal consequences. You could face new charges, resulting in fines, imprisonment, or a combination of both.

Expunging a Conviction

In California, Penal Code Section 1203.4 provides you with a shot at expunging certain convictions. Expunging a conviction frees you from "all penalties and disabilities" linked to the conviction, with a few exceptions.

Expungement will not wipe the conviction off your record entirely. However, it will switch to "dismissed" or "set aside." This can work in your favor when you are looking for jobs, housing, or other opportunities involving a background check.

However, the benefits of expungement have their limits. Some government agencies and certain employers could still have access to the conviction, even post-expungement. The expunged conviction could also be considered for specific purposes, like applying for certain professional licenses.

To qualify for expungement under PC 1203.4, you need to meet the following criteria:

  1. Successful completion of probation — Ensure you have successfully wrapped up probation, be it felony or misdemeanor probation. This means meeting all the terms and conditions the court sets during probation.
  2. Not currently charged — Make sure you are not facing any criminal charges.
  3. Not on probation or in jail — Steer clear of serving probation or being behind bars.

Find a Criminal Defense Attorney Near Me

When faced with the gravity of evading a police officer charge, securing a dependable legal advocate becomes pivotal for shaping the trajectory of your case. Explore the option of consulting with an experienced Fresno criminal defense attorney to delve into the particulars of your situation and carve out the most effective course of action.

At the California Criminal Lawyer Group, we will evaluate and investigate your case's intricacies, crafting a winning strategy for your unique circumstances. Your peace of mind takes precedence. We encourage you to contact us at 559-712-8377 for additional support. Do not hesitate to call. Rest assured, we stand prepared to offer the assistance and direction you require throughout this demanding period.