Is a traffic ticket an arrest?

Question

If a police officer gives a motorist a traffic ticket, is that technically considered an arrest?

I know that some police behaviors are as follows:

• Detaining — with reasonable suspicion
• Investigating — with reasonable suspicion
• Questioning — potential suspects or witnesses
• Arresting — with probable cause

During a traffic stop, the police officer clearly has probable cause sufficient for an arrest because s/he presumably witnessed the offense.

Is there a separate category specifically for traffic stops? Or is that considered a subset of the broader category of making an arrest?

The reason for this question is the language in this California statute:

CA Codes (veh:40300-40313)

40302. Whenever any person is arrested for any violation of this code, not declared to be a felony, the arrested person shall be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate within the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed and who has jurisdiction of the offense and is nearest or most accessible with reference to the place where the arrest is made in any of the following cases:
       (a) When the person arrested fails to present his driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.
       (b) When the person arrested refuses to give his written promise to appear in court.
       (c) When the person arrested demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate.
       (d) When the person arrested is charged with violating Section 23152.

See this SO question and answer.

Answer 1

It is not an arrest. There are many supporting cases to indicate why a traffic stop is not an arrest, but a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States answers the issue in any state of the United States. Quoting page 5 of the opinion of the court in a 2015 case, RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES:

“[A] relatively brief encounter,” a routine traffic stop is “more analogous to a so-called ‘Terry stop’ . . . than to a formal arrest.” Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113, 117 (1998) (quoting Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420, 439 (1984), in turn citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968)). See also Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330 (2009).

The main issue of the case was suppression of evidence acquired after an unconstitutional delay of a traffic stop. Thus the above is binding precedent and not dicta, since otherwise the evidence would not have been suppressed.

Answer 2

Employment questionnaires typically exclude traffic violations in asking about crimes that you may have committed. So merely being stopped for violating such laws does not constitute an "arrest" record.

Answer 3

I have drafted two dozen motions on this issue where people desired to seal a traffic citation under a fairly new statute - PC851.91 which requires the sealing of an arrest which did not result in a conviction. “There is no question Petitioner having been stopped and cited warrants presuming he was arrested. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 533 U.S. 924,121 S. Ct. 2540.”

Similarly, a traffic stop is an “arrest” in federal parlance. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996); United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947 (7th Cir.2002) (en banc). Cf. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit considered it in United States v. Morgan, 354 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2003) found a person who receives a traffic citation is “halted and prevented from leaving until the officer release[s] him.” 354 F.3d at 623. It is well established that an arrest takes place when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, even if that person is never taken to jail. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 (2002); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968).

Traffic citations were also addressed in the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal. 3d 186, 200, 496 P.2d 1205, 1215 (1972) where the court found a traffic citation is an arrest.

But when the officer determines there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and begins the process of citing the violator to appear in court (Veh.Code, ss 40500—40504), an ‘arrest’ takes place at least in the technical sense: ‘The detention which results (during the citation process) is ordinarily brief, and the conditions of restraint are minimal. Nevertheless the violator is, during the period immediately preceding his execution of the promise to appear under arrest.

The Vehicle Code, however, refers to the person awaiting citation as ‘the arrested person.’ Viewing the situation functionally, the violator is being detained against his will by a police officer, for the purpose of obtaining his appearance in connection with a forthcoming prosecution. The violator is not free to depart until he has satisfactorily identified himself and has signed the written promise to appear.' (Fns. omitted.) (People v. Hubbard (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 827, 833, 88 Cal.Rptr. 411, 415.) [Emphasis added]

I hope this is of use to some and wish everyone here the best!

Answer 4

Mowzer's question has already been answered, but wanted to add some info. In the state of Texas, a "traffic ticket" is considered a criminal offense and not an infraction. It's a lower criminal that's under "Class C misdemeanors"

This means if you fail to address your ticket (failed to pay, or attend your court hearing date) then a warrant for your arrest WILL be issued. You can end up in jail for a traffic ticket. At that point, a traffic ticket can turn into an arrest.

Answer 5

You are actually pointing out some severe under-managed terms in the field.

An officer technically can only detain or investigate someone "at will". That means they can hold a conversation with them, but the individual can walk away or refuse. They have a right to remain silent, you could say.

When an officer detains a motorist, they are presumably under arrest, because they're going to write a ticket.