Traffic stops

In the absence of other incriminating or ambiguous [***10] evidence, a vehicle displaying a valid temporary permit and no license plates may not be stopped for the purpose of investigating the permit's validity. (Hernandez, supra, 45 Cal.3d at pp. 299–300; People v. Nabong, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pp. Supp. 3–5.) If the officer does not see the temporary permit and the vehicle has no license plates, it is reasonable for the officer to make a traffic stop. (Dotson, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1051–1052.) A vehicle with expired license tabs, but displaying a temporary permit, may not be stopped if the officer has additional information that there is an ongoing process to cure the lapse in registration. (Brendlin, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1114.) A vehicle displaying a valid temporary permit may be stopped where there is some objective indicia that something may be amiss with the registration or permit, such as a missing front license plate. (Saunders, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1137.) [**65] Finally, a vehicle displaying no license plates and no temporary permit visible from the rear may be stopped for investigation. (In re Raymond C., supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 307–308.)

People v. Greenwood (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 742

Temporary registration

• People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295
• People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129
• People v. Nabong (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th Supp.1

Lack of front California license plate

• People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129

No license plate or temporary registration

In re Raymond C. (2008) 45 Cal.4th 303

Stop sign

Veh. Code § 22450 Veh. Code § 377

Vehicle must stop before the front wheels cross the limit line. (People v. Binkowski (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1.)

Seat belt

Kodani v. Snyder (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 471

Using cell phone

People v. Corrales (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 696

People v. Spriggs (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 150

Passing

1.3. There is substantial evidence defendant acted with wanton disregard for safety. 4 Defendant emphasizes that passing was legally permitted on that stretch of Palmdale Boulevard and insists it was proper for him to move into the left lane without being able to see beyond the delivery truck. He is mistaken.

Section 21650 provides, “Upon all highways, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: [¶] (a) When *372 overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing that movement.” In turn, under section 21751, “On a two-lane highway, no vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.” Likewise, the “driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left at a safe distance without interfering with the safe operation of the overtaken vehicle ....” (§ 21750, subd. (a).) And, “No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety ....” (§ 22107.)

Taken together, these statutes make clear that a broken line on a roadway does not make passing legal: Passing is only legal if it is safe. And passing is not safe unless a driver, before attempting to pass another car, can see that the left lane is free from traffic and that there is enough room in the right lane to overtake the slower vehicle without cutting it off.

That's why the California Driver Handbook published by the Department of Motor Vehicles warns drivers to “[a]void passing other vehicles ... on two-lane roads; it is dangerous. Every time you pass, you increase your chances of having a collision.” (Dept. Motor Vehicles, Cal. Driver Handbook (Aug. 2018) p. 66 <https://www.dmv.ca.gov/web/eng_pdf/dl600.pdf> [as of Feb. 14, 2019]; see, e.g., People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 218, fn. 1, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 746, 235 P.3d 62 (dis. opn. of Kennard, J.) [noting that the Driver Handbook recommends motorists reduce speed by 5–10 miles per hour on wet roads]; Burg v. Municipal Court (1983) 35 Cal.3d 257, 272, 198 Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732 [citing charts in Driver Handbook for principle that drivers know the approximate number of drinks required to exceed maximum blood-alcohol content].) In particular, the handbook cautions, “Do not pull out to pass unless you know you have enough space to pull back into your lane.” (Cal. Driver Handbook, at p. 65.) And: “Do not count on having enough time to pass several vehicles at once or that other drivers will make room for you.” (Id., at p. 66.) The handbook also emphasizes: “Do not pass: [¶] If you are approaching a hill or curve and cannot see if other traffic is approaching.” (Id., at p. 65.) Finally, the handbook warns: “Drive more slowly at night because you cannot see as far ahead and you will have less time to stop for a hazard.” (Id., at p. 82.) Indeed, this last point was consistent with Parsons's testimony that it takes longer for a driver to perceive and react to hazards at night than during the day.

Here, the delivery truck blocked defendant's view of the entire right lane and at least part of the left lane. He simply had no idea whether it would be safe to pass—and yet he nevertheless pulled into the left lane on a dark but apparently busy road and, driving 70 miles per hour, tried to pass two vehicles at once. The jurors, at least some of whom were presumably licensed drivers, were undoubtedly familiar with basic principles of traffic safety and could reasonably infer that by ignoring them, defendant acted with wanton disregard for the safety of others. (De Young v. Haywood (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 16, 19, 292 P.2d 917 [“these rules of the road are **779 merely descriptive of practices that have long been recognized throughout the country and are known to everyone of sufficient judgment and experience to act as a competent juror”].)

Furthermore, Emery testified that she made room for defendant to return to the right lane but he did not try to slow down. According to Parsons, defendant continued to accelerate until two and a half seconds before the collision. The jury could have reasonably inferred from this testimony that when defendant saw Jessica's headlights, he still had enough time and space to return to his lane ahead of Emery but nonetheless still tried to pass the truck. Taken together, a reasonable jury could conclude from these facts that defendant's conduct went beyond mere carelessness.

Accordingly, we conclude there is sufficient evidence defendant acted with reckless disregard for safety.

(People v. Escarcega (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 362, 371–373.)