Motion to Dismissed Case of Battery

Motion to Dismiss Lack of probable Cause

based on – Lack of Territorial jurisdiction

Sec. 839.1.a (1)

People V. Landis 2007 – 68 Cal. Rpt 3d

267

I beg the indulgence of this court, to hear the defense motion to dismiss the charges that

make up this case and this case in its entirety. Motion based on the California Penial

Code - Sec. 991.

Legal Ground for Dismissal:

1. Cal. Penial Code 839.1.a (1`) Officer in this case was outside his political

Subdivision/Territorial Jurisdiction that employ the peace officer.

2. People V. Landis 2007 – 68 Cal. Rep. 3d 267 – 268

a) When the Authority of an officer to arrest falls outside his or her powers to

arrest, when acting beyond his or her geographic area his or her authority is the

same as that is conferred upon a private citizen.

b) The citation issued to the defendant for failure to stop at a red light outside the

officers Territorial Jurisdiction was not proper as a citizen arrest, because

defendant was not taken to magistrate or to other police officer as required by

law.

Facts Are as Followers: On January 5 th 2021, at about 7:45 PM, an incident is alleged to

took place at the Los Angeles County, Grand Park: which is managed by the Los Angeles

County Music Center. For which, the city employees, of the City of Los Angeles, showed

up. These city employees, were assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

Defendant knew these city workers, were assigned to the LAPD because of the uniform

they wore.

The city workers, came and spoke to defendant Palmer, about an alleged incident that

alleged to took place; earlier that evening. Defendant Palmer did not feel any obligation

to speak to these workers, and so he did not.

As a result, the employees of the City of Los Angeles: declared they are going to arrest

Defendant Palmer.

After their declaration and against defendant Palmer’s will and wishes; Defendant

Palmer’s person and property were searched: violating his privacy.

The LAPD assigned city workers, put the defendant in hand cuff, place him in an LAPD

vehicle, took the defendant to the police station, then to the Los Angeles City Police

Holding, where the defendant was, booked in (finger printed, photographed). the

defendant was also taken to be examined by the facility medical practitioner. Defendant

Palmer refused medical examinations.

After which, defendant Palmer person was searched once again, then he was placed in a

cell for several hours. After spending several hours in a cell, defendant Palmer was

served with a citation and released.

This case is the culmination of the forgoing events, for which the defendant is requesting

this court to dismiss.

Reason for dismissal point #1:

The California Penial code, which the Los Angeles Police Department personnel are

sworn to enforce; and which give them the authority to act clearly set out the perimeters

for the institution like the LAPD to operate.

Sec. 830.1.a (1) restricts the Los Angeles Police Department personnel from

operating outside their political subdivision or territorial Jurisdiction, which not only

entails: those areas, that are physically outside its city limits. But also entails, those

streets, buildings, parks, other properties and facilities that are own by another political

subdivisions, that is within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles. Which will include

County, State and Federal, buildings, parks, properties and other facilities.

Therefore the arrest charge and prosecution of defendant Palmer on County own property

is an unlawful act by the Los Angeles Police Department personnel.

According to Sec. 830.1.a. of the California Penal Code, the instrument that gives the City

of Los Angeles, Police Department personnel; their authority to act; Sub Sec (3)

stipulates under what conditions a Peace Officer may lawfully act in a law enforcement

capacity; outside their Territorial Jurisdiction/Political Subdivision.

Sec.830.1.a (3) of the California Penal Code. states: In the case, where such peace officer

witnessed, a public offence, and have reasons to believe, a public offence was committed,

with respect to which there is an immediate danger, to person or property, or of the

escape of the perpetrator of the offence.

According to the information outlined in the discoveries of the prosecutions, none of the

conditions, which would have given, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department,

the authority to arrest defendant Palmer was present.

Therefore, the actions of the city to arrest, charge and now attempting to prosecute

defendant Palmer is unlawful, and this action should be dismissed.

Reason for dismissal point #2:

Another reason why this court should dismiss this case, is base of the California Appeal

Courts ruling in Prople V Landis 68 Cal. Rep, 3d 267.

In peoples V. Landis the California appeal court in addressing the legality of a similar

matter rule, that the offers operating outside his territorial jurisdiction, had the same

powers of that which is conferred upon an ordinary citizen.

This simply means the power of the Los Angeles Police Department employees, at the

time, date and place of arrest of defendant Palmer, was no greater than that of the

defendant himself. And therefore, their actions, in arresting the defendant was

unlawful. Only because, they did not hand the defendant over to the law enforcement

authority, that had jurisdiction over the defendant for his alleged breach of the peace;

Which was needed to properly effect a citizen’s arrest. As outlined in People V. Landis

This to is also valid reason, for this court to dismiss this case in its entirety.

It must be brough to this court’s attention, the unlawful arrest of defendant Palmer,

saw the city employees, who are assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department,

violated defendant’s constitutional right that was provided by the California

Constitution: article 1 of the California constitution sec. 13, which protects Defendant

Palmer’s rights from unlawful/unreasonable search and seizure. As well as the

constitution of the United States of America.

The entire process of booking defendant Palmer into the jail was unlawful process,

and was in violation of Defendant Palmer’s constitution rights as it protected by the

California constitution and the constitution of the United States of America.

Defendant in this case request that this court, with immediate effect, dismiss this case.

For to delay the dismissal of this case; is to deny the defendant of justice; and to

compound the injuries the unlawful acts of the LAPD personnel have so unlawfully

inflicted upon the defendant in this case.

Just in case

To lend clarity to a mostly misconstrued section of section 830.1.a is sub section 3.

Which speaks of the granting of permission. This only applies to the holding or

prisoners: who were remanded into custody or sentence to do time in jail. These

facilities are often facilities that are own and operated by a political entity that is

different from the political entity that established the law enforcement agencies that

arrested and prosecute the person, need to be held over in custody upon remand, to do

time or to facilitate an overflow of a holding facility in a political subdivision. An

example of this is the Los Angeles County Jail. County Property operated by County

Peace officers.

Dated this 22 nd day of January, 2025

Allan H. F. Palmer

Defendant in Pro Per

Arrested to Challenge the System

1. Cal. Penial Code 839.1.a (1`) Officer in this case was outside his political Subdivision/Territorial Jurisdiction that employ the peace officer.

2. People V. Landis 2007 – 68 Cal. Rep. 3d 367 – 268
a) When the Authority of an officer to arrest falls outside his or her powers to arrest, when acting beyond his or her geographic area his or her authority is the same as that is conferred upon a private citizen.
b) The citation issued to the defendant for failure to stop at a red light outside the officers Territorial Jurisdiction was not proper as a citizen arrest, because defendant was not taken to magistrate or to other police officer as required by law.

Facts Are as Followers: Defendant for several months have observed Employees of the City of Los Angeles; who are assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), Conducting daily unlawfully, law enforcement operations; in the Los Angels County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Train facility. Defendant knew they were city workers and they were assigned to the LAPD based on the uniform they wore.

One of the two points these operations are carried out are at: Union Station. The operation at Union Station, targeting riders of the: A line. The A line Travels back and Forth from City of Azusa to Down Town Long Beach.

The second and last location these operations are carried out is at Persian Square Subway Train Station. The Operations at Persian Square Subway Train Station target riders on the B and the D lines which travels back and forth from Union Station to North Hollywood in the case of the B line and from Union Station to Wilshire and Western in Korea Town in case of the D line.

The main target, of these operations, are the members of the disenfranchised African American community.

On Sunday, December 29th, 2024, at about 10:00 A.M. while the defendant was using the Metro B line, heading South. Upon arrival and stopping at Persian Square Train Station, he noticed the LAPD employees, dressed in uniform, carrying out one of their unlawful operations, at the Persian Square Subway Train Station. The LAPD personnel activated the train’s emergency system, to hold the train in the station while they conducted their checks. The cart defendant Palmer was in was not checked.

As a result, defendant Palmer, continued to the next stop and awaited the next train going North. positioned himself on the train, where he will come into contact with the officers that were conducting the operations. Upon reaching the Persian Square Train Stop in the subway; the officers activated the train emergency door system, then they asked passengers, to show them their metro card.

It is important to note; that the officers at this point, did not have any apparatus to verify the validity that the people who were riding actually paid their fare.

When the officer came to defendant Palmer, Defendant brought it to the officer’s attention, they do not have any lawful authority, to make any law enforcement demand upon him. Palmer also told the officers, he is not showing him anything; and he will not be cooperating with him in this regard; because he do not have a lawful authority, to make any demands with him. The officer insisted they have, the rights to act in the manner they were acting.

Officers invited Defendant Palmer to step off of the train, the request to which defendant Palmer refused.

The officer them called for back up on the police Radio. As a result, several other NYPD personnel came to the officer’s assistance. The of the LAPD personnel took away defendant Palmer’s liberty. They carried out a search of defendant Palmer’s person, put him in hand cuffs, took him to street level, placed him in a LAPD vehicle and transported me to the Los Angeles Police Department Holding; where he was processed.

It must be noted that there were three Supervisors of the rank of Sergeant of Police that was on the scene overseeing the operation

Defendant Palmer property was search: violating his privacy. The search of defendant Palmer’s property his California ID was retrieved, from his property. It was only then that the police officers learnt of defendant Palmer’s identity which facilitated him being booked in (photos, fingerprints, and a jail identification tag was place on his hand. The L.A.P.D. employees attempted to have defendant Palmer evaluated by the facility medical personnel, which defendant Palmer refused).

The defendant was later placed in a cell for several hours after which he was granted bail to appear before a magistrate.

The California Penial code, which the Los Angeles Police Department personnel are sworn to enforce; Clearly set out the perimeters for the institution like the LAPD to
operate. Sec. 830.1.a (1) restricts the Los Angeles Police Department personnel from operating outside their territorial Jurisdiction, which not only entails those areas outside the city limits. But also entails, those streets, buildings, parks, and other properties and facilities that are own by a sovereign that is within the city limits of the city of Los Angeles. Which will include County, State and Federal, buildings, parks, properties and other facilities.

According to Sec. 830.1.a. (3) of the California Penal Code, the only reason Los Angeles Police Department personnel has the authority to act, outside their territorial Jurisdiction/Political Subdivision; is in the case they witnessed, a public offence, or have probable cause to believe, a Public Offence was committed, with respect to which there is immediate danger, to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of the offence.

No Police officer could ever complete his or her basic Police Training Course without being thought operational Jurisdiction; what it is and how it works and how such limitations can impact actual policing.

The unlawful actions of the Los Angeles Police Department employees, resulted in the violation of Several of the defendant’s protected rights. Which includes article 1 of the California constitution sec. 13, which protects Defendant Palmer’s rights from unlawful/unreasonable search and seizure.

The entire process of booking defendant Palmer into the jail was unlawful process, and was in violation of Defendant Palmer’s constitution rights as it protected by the California constitution and the constitution of the United States of America.

Defendant in this case request that this court dismiss this case, to delay the dismissal of this case is to deny the defendant justice; and to compound the injuries the unlawful acts of the LAPD personnel have so unlawfully inflicted upon the defendant in this case.

In closing: These Rogue employees of the Los Angeles Police Department. Do not care about the rule of law; and it is evident that the oath they took, to uphold the law of California and the laws of the United States of America, to the best of their ability without fear and or favor means absolutely nothing to them.

They are nothing but mercenaries for hire, and as such they are willing to violate the rights of the citizenry, to get and continue to get, the extra duty monies from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority.

A Perfect example of this is this case, here we have one incident that took place on Sunday 29th December 2024, and from that one incident defendant Palmer was alleged to committed three minor infractions, Yet the defendant is give three different court dates, to attend two different courts.

In my fourteen years of policing and actively policing in two sovereign jurisdictions, I have never, seen or hear of anything like this. This is nothing but a demonstration of greed. A willful perpetration of fraudulent, to obtain three days of extra duty pay from the Los Angeles Metro. To attend court to deal with a matter that should have been dealt with on one day in one court. This is the extent of the dishonesty of these LAPD employees.


Dated this 22nd day of January, 2025


Allan H. F. Palmer
Defendant in Pro Per