California’s Second District Court of Appeals ruled against the California Highway Patrol this week in a case addressing how the law enforcement agency classifies the arrests of people who are then released without being charged.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by John Schmidt, who was arrested by the CHP in 2011 on suspicion of driving under the influence, was booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail, and then was released without being charged.

California law mandates that in such cases, the arrests are to be deemed detentions only, and the agency that made the arrest must issue the person a certificate describing the action as a detention, report it as such to the Department of Justice, and make sure the official criminal record refers to it as a detention.

The CHP, Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert wrote, has not been complying with those codes.

Others included in the lawsuit were in the same boat as Schmidt: They had been arrested by the CHP in Santa Barbara County since June 1, 2009, and were released without being charged, did not receive that certificate, and did not have the detention reported to the Department of Justice.

The three judges ordered the CHP to issue the certificates of detention to them, to let the DOJ know they were detentions, and to begin complying with the relevant laws.

Schmidt also was awarded $296,100 in attorney fees.

Those decisions were effectively the same as those of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle two years prior, during the case’s trial court.

The CHP argued that some of the key terms in the relevant laws may have become unclear over time because of changes in criminal procedure — an argument the court disagreed with in no uncertain terms.

“The CHP admits that ‘at first blush,’ the terms ‘released,’ ‘accusatory pleadings’ and ‘filed’ might appear unambiguous,” Gilbert wrote. “With the deletion of the words ‘at first blush’ and ‘might,’ we agree. We part company with the CHP when it advances the fanciful argument that the terms are not clear because of changes in criminal procedure over the last 40 years.

“The language of the statutes is clear and unambiguous.”

The CHP also had argued that there was “insufficient evidence of numerous persons” included in the lawsuit, and that “there was no significant benefit conferred on the general public” by granting Schmidt attorney fees.

The judges disagreed on those counts as well.

“Society as a whole benefits when law enforcement agencies properly interpret and implement the law,” Gilbert wrote.

— Noozhawk staff writer Sam Goldman can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.