P. v. Zick
In an amended information, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County charged defendant and appellant, Harold Leon Zick (hereafter defendant), with two counts of violating Health and Safety Code section 12702, subdivision (c)[1]by possessing dangerous fireworks, having a total net weight of 7,500 grains or more of explosive material, without a permit.[2] The charges stem from two separate incidents. The first (which is the basis for the charge set out in count 1), occurred on April 16, 2005, when a deputy sheriff stopped defendants tractor-trailer rig as defendant was driving south on Highway 127 near Baker because the trailer did not have a visible license plate. Defendant had just purchased the trailer and produced the necessary paperwork. In the course of the stop, the deputy learned that defendant was hauling fireworks, and because he did not know whether defendant was violating any laws, the deputy contacted the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Two CHP officers arrived at the scene and, among other things, reviewed the bill of lading defendant had presented to the sheriffs deputy. That bill of lading showed that defendant was hauling the fireworks from Pahrump, Nevada, to Elsinore, Missouri, and that Highway 127 was part of defendants designated route. After discussing the situation with each other, and contacting a CHP commercial enforcement officer for additional advice, the CHP officers determined that defendant had not violated any California Vehicle Code provision. In the meantime, a second deputy sheriff, assigned to the bomb and arson detail, arrived at the scene. This second deputy concluded that defendant was required to have a permit from the State Fire Marshal. As a result, the deputy issued defendant a citation for violating section 12702, subdivision (c), and impounded defendants trailer. When later inspected, the sheriffs deputies determined that the trailer contained 320 cases of fireworks with over 21,000 grains of explosive material. The judgment is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new trial on count 2, and with directions to enter a judgment of acquittal on count 1.
Comments on P. v. Zick