Case Summary
Outcome: Citation Dismissed with Prejudice
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court, Los Angeles County, California
Judge: Hon. Patricia Kim
Duration: 58 days from citation to dismissal
Total Cost: $168 (public records requests + filing fees + service costs)
In February 2026, Chen received a traffic citation for allegedly running a red light at Interstate 405 and Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles County. Rather than paying the $250 fine, Chen investigated whether the issuing officer had met the constitutional prerequisites to office required by California law.
Through public records requests, Chen discovered that Officer Michael Anderson had never filed an oath of office with the Los Angeles County Clerk despite serving as a law enforcement officer for several months. This discovery formed the basis for a motion to dismiss arguing that Officer Michael Anderson lacked lawful authority to issue citations, rendering the citation void ab initio (void from inception).
The Los Angeles Superior Court granted Chen's motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the citation was permanently dismissed and could not be refiled. This case demonstrates the practical application of constitutional prerequisites to office challenges in California and provides a roadmap for similar challenges throughout the state.
Key Success Factors
Chen's strongest asset was the documentary evidence from the Los Angeles County Clerk stating "No oath of office on file for Michael Anderson." This official statement from the government agency responsible for maintaining oath records was far more persuasive than testimony alone.
Chen grounded the argument in Article XX, § 3 of the California Constitution, not in commercial redemption theories or sovereign citizen rhetoric. This constitutional foundation gave the argument legitimacy and made it difficult for the prosecution to dismiss as frivolous.
Chen cited Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886), a U.S. Supreme Court case establishing that acts by officers without lawful authority are void ab initio. This precedent has been recognized by California courts and provided strong legal support for dismissal.
Chen presented the argument professionally and respectfully, without sovereign citizen rhetoric or confrontational language. This made it easier for the judge to rule favorably without appearing to endorse fringe legal theories.
Chen acted quickly, submitting public records requests within 4 days of the citation and filing the motion within 3 weeks. This gave adequate time to obtain evidence and file before the original court date.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
| Scenario | Immediate Cost | Long-Term Cost | Total Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pay the Fine | $250 | $875-$2,625 (insurance increases) | $1125-$2875 |
| Constitutional Challenge | $168 | $0 (if successful) | $168 |
Savings: $957 to $2707
By successfully challenging the citation, Chen saved between $957 and $2707 compared to paying the fine and absorbing insurance increases over 3 years.
Replicability in California
The legal framework Chen used applies statewide in California. Article XX, § 3 requires all officers in all counties to take oaths of office. The void ab initio doctrine applies in all California courts. Therefore, this challenge can be replicated in any California jurisdiction where the officer actually lacks proper credentials.
However, success probability varies by jurisdiction. Los Angeles Superior Court has a reputation for being receptive to constitutional arguments. Judges in rural counties or smaller municipal courts may be less familiar with void ab initio doctrine and more reluctant to dismiss citations on procedural grounds.
Despite jurisdictional variations, the fundamental legal principle remains sound: an officer without a valid oath lacks lawful authority, and acts without authority are void ab initio. This principle has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court and should be honored by all California courts.
Critical Requirement
This challenge only works if the officer genuinely lacks proper credentials. Do not assume the officer lacks an oath—verify through public records requests. If the officer has a valid oath on file, this challenge will fail.