What Constitutes Arrest, Stop and Frisk (Terry)
Category > What Constitutes Arrest, Stop and Frisk (Terry)
Updated 6/1/2024Officers actions in approaching defendant in her car with both shining flashlights constituted a detention.Around midnight, two officers in a marked police car saw defendant alone in a parked car. They pulled alongside of her so close that she would have to squeeze to get out. One officer then approached defendant’s side of the car and the other on the passenger side. They both shined flashlights on her. This was a detention under the Fourth Amendment, and was not justified.id: 28275
Updated 3/19/2024Defendant was unlawfully detained where police approached his car, shined flashlights inside and positioned themselves to prevent him from fleeing.Defendant was sitting in his legally parked car talking on his phone when officers approached from both sides, and blocked him from fleeing on foot. They shined flashlights through the car windows. Even though their subsequent conversation was non-confrontational in tone, a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. The encounter was therefore an unlawful detention, and during that time, defendant acknowledged he was on parole. The firearm the police found during the search should have been suppressed due to the initial unlawful detention.id: 28214
Updated 3/7/2024Valid stop following a robbery report, without more, did not justify the pat search.The minor was lawfully detained following a report of a fresh robbery. The pat search was not justified by these facts without specific and articulable facts to show that he was armed and dangerous.id: 26448
Updated 2/1/2024Pat search was not justified for defendant wearing baggy clothes with a history of possessing a weapon.Defendant was stopped for a Vehicle Code infraction and was cooperative at all times. The officer conducted a pat search because defendant was wearing baggy clothes (that could have hidden a weapon), and his history of possessing weapons. The trial court properly granted the suppression motion given the lack of specific facts showing the defendant was armed and dangerous.id: 27964
Supreme Court finds officers must have reasonable suspicion to frisk passenger during lawful car stopPolice officers pulled over a vehicle when a license plate check
revealed that the vehicle’s registration had been suspended. When the officers stopped the car,
they had no reason to suspect that the driver or the two passengers were involved in criminal
activity. When an officer approached defendant, who was the passenger in the rear seat, the
officer noticed that defendant was wearing a bandana consistent with gang membership and had a
police scanner in his pocket. Defendant provided his name and date of birth but said he had no
identification. The officer asked defendant to get out of the car, and as he did so, the officer
patted him down for weapons. During the pat-down, the officer found a gun in defendant’s
waistband. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court reiterated that when officers validly stop a car, they must have reasonable suspicion that an occupant is armed and dangerous before the officer subjects the occupant to a frisk.id: 21353
Refusal to consent does not establish reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat search.Refusal to consent does not establish reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat search.id: 20999
Handcuffing defendant after the police saw his friend smoking pot constituted an arrest without probable cause.Two teenagers were walking down the street in the afternoon and one was smoking a marijuana cigarette. That teenager was arrested. Defendant, the companion was handcuffed and then asked for permission to search him. He consented and the police found drugs. However, the conduct of the officers exceeded a reasonable detention and defendant was under arrest when the officer asked for permission to search him. Because there was no probable cause to arrest him, the consent to search was not voluntary, and the evidence discovered must be suppressed.id: 20571
The police had no authority to conduct a patdown search of defendant, who was present during a probation search absent reason to believe he was armed and dangerous.Officers conducted a probation search at a residence. Defendant was a “known associate” of the probationer and was present during the search. The police violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a patdown search because they had no reason to believe he was armed and dangerous.id: 20373
Defendant was detained where police focused the spotlight on him and walked briskly over and asked him about his parole/probation status.The trial court erred in finding no detention occurred before the officer learned defendant was on parole. The officer stopped his patrol car, focused the spotlight on defendant, walked briskly toward him and immediately asked about his probation and parole status. The officer's lack of verbal commands did not matter as the show of authority was so intimidating as to communicate to a reasonable person that he was not free to leave.id: 19942
Supreme Court holds that car stop results in seizure of passenger.Police officers conducted a traffic stop of a car in which defendant was a passenger. An officer recognized defendant as a parole violator, ordered him out of the car, and arrested him. A search of the car revealed materials used to manufacture methamphetamine, and defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. The California Supreme Court held that the traffic stop did not result in defendant's seizure, that defendant was not seized until the officers ordered him out of the car, and therefore, that he could not challenge the lawfulness of the traffic stop. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a traffic stop results in the seizure of a vehicle's passenger and that the passenger may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.id: 20191
Restraining appellant in someone else's apartment while waiting to secure a warrant amounted to an arrest where the restraint was not limited in duration, scope, or purpose.Dallas was arrested following a tip that he was selling drugs from his car. Officers then entered Dallas' apartment without a warrant and detained appellant, a visitor for three and one-half hours until they could secure a warrant. The detention amounted to an arrest given the length of time and the fact that he had absolutely no freedom of movement, but was handcuffed and sat in a room under police surveillance. Since the arrest was made without probable cause, appellant's statements should have been suppressed.id: 11013
Pat search of parolee was improper where he was stopped for a traffic infraction.Officer stopped defendant for riding an unlicensed bicycle and, after ascertaining he was on parole, pat searched him for weapons. The court erred in denying the motion to suppress the rock cocaine found in defendant's pocket. A frisk was not permitted simply because he was on parole. Moreover, the search cannot be justified as a lawful parole search. Where an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a parolee is in possession of evidence relating to a violation of the law or other condition of parole, the officer may conduct a parole search. However, the search was improper where the officer detained a parolee for a traffic infraction and had no reasonable suspicion that a search would produce such evidence.id: 11008
Possession of a small amount of baking soda or powder did not support a conclusion that defendant was armed and dangerous and the pat search was improper.Officers approached a car that was stopped on a rural road. They twice requested permission to search the car and permission was denied. They looked for items in plain view to justify a search and saw nothing. Officers were then given permission to search a backpack the driver and passenger denied owning. In the backpack was a toothbrush and a film canister which contained baking soda. The officer believed the baking soda was a cutting agent for narcotics. He then conducted a pat down of defendant for weapons. He felt a bulge that might have been a baggie with something in it. The instant pat search was improper. Possession of a small amount of baking soda should not lead an officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. The officer had no evidence that defendant was reaching for or had a weapon. Even if the pat-down was justified the search became impermissible when the officer reached into defendant's pocket.id: 11012
Officer's yelling Hold it, Police. constituted a detention.The officer clearly manifested his intent to detain appellant when he explicitly, unambiguously, and authoritatively demanded that appellant and his companion Hold it, Police. The officer did not request but rather commanded appellant to follow his order.id: 11000
Defendant was detained where he was directed to stop by an officer who arrived suddenly and parked his car in such a way as to obstruct traffic.Defendant was standing on the sidewalk with two other men when he was suddenly confronted with a marked police car pulling across the street toward him. The car then parked diagonally against traffic a mere 10 feet away. When defendant began to leave, the officer got out of the car and said, Stop. Would you please stop. This conduct constituted a detention rather than a consensual encounter as argued by the People. A reasonable person would not believe he or she was free to leave when directed to stop by a police officer who has arrived suddenly and parked his car in such a way as to obstruct traffic.id: 10993
Updated 2/22/2024Defendant was not detained when the officer ordered him to step away from the car, but was later detained when the officer smelled marijuana and saw three large bags in the car.Defendant was not detained when the officer ordered him to stay outside the car and near the sidewalk behind it. He was not detained until the officer smelled marijuana, and saw three large bags on the rear floorboard of the car. At the point the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe a crime had been committed.id: 26955
Updated 2/3/2024The act of shining a spotlight on a parked car, did not by itself, constitute a detention. A deputy patrolling a resident neighborhood after dark saw three people sitting in a car smoking something. He illuminated the spotlight and approached the vehicle on foot. The act of shining the spotlight did not by itself, constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment.id: 27670
Smell of marijuana after a stop in a high crime area where the defendants were evasive supported a pat search, and a search of the vehicle, even after Prop 64.Defendant argued the justification for the pat search was officer safety during the intended search of the vehicle, but there was no probable cause to search the vehicle based on the smell of marijuana following the enactment of Prop 64. However, because marijuana possession and use is still highly circumscribed by law, even after the passage of Prop 64, the odor and presence of marijuana in a vehicle driven in a high crime area, combined with evasive conduct by the occupants of the vehicle was reasonably suggestive of unlawful drug possession and transport, and justified the Terry frisk. Moreover, the smell also provided probable cause to search the vehicle as it created a fair probability that a search might yield additional contraband or evidence.id: 25872
Pat search for weapons was justified based on the officer’s observation of a bulge in defendant’s pocket.Prior to conducting the pat search, the officer observed “bulges” in defendant’s pocket that included “something solid.” The pat search was proper because there were specific and articulable facts to believe defendant was armed and dangerous given the hard object in defendant’s pocket that was visible to the officer.id: 25691
Police were entitled to perform a patdown after detaining defendant for not having a driver’s license and watching him repeatedly reach toward a bulging item in his front pocket.Police approached defendant after his disabled car had rolled into an intersection. They detained him after learning his driver’s license had been suspended. During the encounter, police noticed a heavy bulging item in defendant’s front pocket that he repeatedly touched. The police were entitled to conduct a patdown for weapons at that time.id: 25197
Detaining the driver of the second car by activating emergency lights was justified by the concern for the safety of the officers who were investigating the first car. Sheriff’s deputies pulled their patrol car behind two vehicles parked at night on a driveway out of sight from a nearby highway. The two vehicles included a lead vehicle and a second one driven by defendant. The deputies activated their emergency lights to investigate a felony arrest warrant for the registered owner of the lead vehicle. The action amounted to a detention of defendant, but it was justified to assure that defendant did not present a danger to the deputies while they approached and investigated the lead vehicle.id: 24670
Probation officers had the authority to detain and pat search a nonprobationer at the residence who had gang tattoos and was acting belligerently.Defendant was inside the residence of a juvenile probationer when probation officers arrived looking to conduct a probation search. Defendant, who had visible gang tattoos, argued the probation officers lacked the authority to detain him and conduct a pat search. However, defendant was overly dressed for the weather, acted belligerently and refused to answer questions. The probation officers were acting within the scope of their authority and were not required to await an overt act of hostility before acting to neutralize the perceived threat.id: 22104
The prolonged detention of defendant for a “records check” while defendant was detained for Vehicle Code violations did not violate the U.S. Constitution.Defendant argued the evidence resulting from the search should have been suppressed because the detention became unduly prolonged based on an investigation unrelated to the Vehicle Code violations. However, the limit on time an officer may detain a Vehicle Code violator (People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577) is no longer the law in California for purposes of the Fourth Amendment analysis.id: 21321
Patsearch was justified where the officer saw burglary tools near defendant who was suspected of burglarizing a car.The officer detained defendant based upon his observations that defendant was burglarizing or hot-wiring a car. The officer was justified in conducting a patsearch of defendant who was in close proximity to screwdrivers and other tools, and was acting nervous. The officer also knew defendant was still on parole. Moreover, by handcuffing defendant during the patsearch, the officer did not convert the detention into a de facto arrest, requiring probable cause.id: 21161
The passenger in a stopped vehicle is not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment absent circumstances showing he or she was the subject of the investigation or the officer's show of authority.When a police officer directs the driver of a vehicle to pull
over for a traffic stop, but in effecting the stop, gives no indication that the passenger of the vehicle is the focus of the officer's investigation or show of authority, the passenger is not "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.id: 19128
Police properly conducted a pat search of a passenger of a car that was about to be searched where he was wearing baggy clothes and the car reeked of marijuana.Police stopped a car for a traffic violation and smelled marijuana coming from the car as the officer approached. The officer asked the occupants to step outside of the car to search the interior. The subsequent patdown search of defendant was reasonable even though they were not in a high crime area and defendant made no furtive gestures. The officer was concerned for his safety because of defendant’s size, his baggy clothing, and the fact that defendant or the driver had been smoking marijuana.id: 20627
Minor’s suspicious behavior and prior contacts with police supported the pat search after he was stopped for a traffic infraction in a gang area.The minor was stopped for a traffic infraction. He argued the subsequent pat search for weapons violated the Fourth Amendment. However, the evidence showed he was fleeing criminal activity and was likely armed. He was in a gang area, and the officer knew of a recent gang related shooting, and the minor was known to police from prior contacts. The experienced officer could reasonably conclude the pat search was appropriate. id: 20626
Officers executing search warrant for narcotics may conduct a Terry pat search of occupants who are not acting in a threatening manner.Where police officers are called upon to execute a warranted search for narcotics within a private residence they have the lawful right to conduct a limited Terry pat-down search for weapons upon the occupants present while the search is in progress regardless of whether the occupants were behaving in a threatening manner.id: 11001
The detention was not unduly prolonged where defendant sat handcuffed in the patrol car as other officers drove to the remote area looking for evidence to link defendant to the marijuana cultivation.The detention was not unduly prolonged where defendant sat handcuffed in the patrol car while another officer drove an hour to the remote location of the "marijuana grow." Once there, it took additional time to search the area and gather evidence linking defendant to the grow. Moreover, the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant after searching his backpack. Even absent probable cause, defendant was not formally detained as the officers told him he would be released if they did not find evidence linking him to the marijuana grow.id: 19939
The patdown search of a minor was proper where his presence on the high school campus was unexplained and unauthorized. The minor was not a student of the high school and his presence on the school grounds was unauthorized. He argued that while his
presence justified a detention, it did not justify a patdown as he did not refuse to leave when asked. However, the fact that he had no legitimate business on campus created a reasonable need
to determine whether or not he posed a danger. The patdown search of the minor was proper.id: 19167
The search of defendant's pocket, revealing the car keys from the stolen vehicle, did not exceed the scope of the Terry search.Police had reasonable suspicion to detain and patsearch defendant. He argued the officer exceeded his authority by removing the keys from his pocket. However, the officer had probable cause to believe the keys were evidence linking defendant to the carjacking at the time of the "plain feel" search. Moreover, the police dog tracked in the direction of defendant indicating there was a fair chance he had been in the car. This evidence, coupled with defendant's denials that he possessed any keys, created the probability of criminal activity when the officer felt what he believed to be keys in defendant's pocket.id: 18373
Detention and pat-down were reasonable where defendant was thought to have a gun (police were not sure if the gun was possessed by defendant or his associate) and he was belligerent when approached by police. Defendant argued the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and perform a pat-down search. However, a woman called police and reported that two men in a crowded park displayed a firearm. When the police arrived she identified the men and said they were bothering her. Because it was dark, she could not tell whether defendant was the man with the gun. Defendant was aggressive, hostile, and refused to give his name or remove his hands from his pockets. Under the circumstances, the detention and pat-down were reasonable.id: 17903
Officer did not exceed the scope of the pat search by asking about the nature of the lump in defendant's pant leg.The officer was performing a justified pat search for weapons. When patting defendant's leg he felt a bulky, somewhat hard object, and did not know if it was a weapon. He asked defendant what the object was without removing it. Defendant then confessed to a crime by stating the object was meth. The officer did not exceed the scope of the search by asking defendant about the nature of the lump.id: 15622
Pat search was justified where defendant was acting suspiciously, appeared to be under the influence, and denied knowledge of a metal object within reach.Defendant was observed acting suspiciously by walking around his car and dropping an envelope from his waist. When the officers approached defendant appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. The officers saw a metal object within eight inches of defendant's hand. When officers asked about the object, defendant denied knowledge of it, denied ownership of the vehicle and admitted having alcohol in the truck. When officers asked defendant to step away from the truck, he assumed the search position. Under the circumstances a pat search for weapons was proper.id: 15623
Pat search was justified for officer safety where police were told face-to-face by two anonymous informants within seconds that someone matching defendant's description was carrying a gun at a New Year's Eve celebration.The receipt of two independent tips from citizens, very close in time describing in a similar manner the criminal activity (possession of a firearm) and the suspect's physical attributes and location, as well as the face-to-face nature of the encounter between the police and informants provided sufficient reliability to the information supplied to support the officers' reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, that defendant was involved and that he was armed. The officers were justified in pat-searching defendant for their safety.id: 14915
Officers' investigatory pursuit did not constitute a detention.Officers saw appellant with a woman known to associate with drug dealers. Appellant and the woman began walking quickly and then started jogging and the officers followed. One officer observed appellant place a brown paper bag in a trash can. The officer retrieved the bag which contained marijuana. The officers' conduct in running after appellant and the woman did not constitute a detention because a reasonable person in appellant's position would have concluded he was free to leave where the officers did not obstruct appellant's movement and gave no orders or show of force.id: 11002
Ordering defendant into a house at gunpoint constituted a detention.Defendant approached a house that was being searched pursuant to a warrant. He was ordered into the house at gunpoint, a pat-down search for weapons was conducted, and the officers testified they did not consider defendant free to leave. The police conduct constituted a detention.id: 11003
Pat down was proper where defendant defied the officer's direction to remove his hands from his pocket given that they were in a gang area at night.During a consensual encounter (as opposed to a detention) the officer told defendant to remove his hands from his jacket pockets. Defendant then placed his hands back into his pockets. A pat down of defendant was reasonable given the fact that the officers were in a gang neighborhood, at night and were confronting two persons whom they had recently seen leaving the curb of a known gang house.id: 11004
Pat-search and subsequent look into defendant's pocket were justified after detention where officer witnessed defendant make an exchange in an area known for drug activity.Officer who had knowledge of the extensive drug activity in the area observed defendant make a hand-to-hand exchange and then hide something on his person. He then detained defendant. The officer's belief that defendant might be armed and dangerous was reasonable given the knowledge of the drug activity in the area, the propensity of drug dealers to carry weapons and the witnessed exchange. The pat-search was therefore justified. Moreover, the officer's action in widening and looking into defendant's pocket after the pat-search revealed a hard, rectangular object was also justified. Since the officer believed the hard object could be a knife, he was justified in removing the object from defendant's pocket and he was also justified in simply looking into defendant's pocket to determine whether the object was a weapon.id: 11005
Pat search following detention for public drinking was proper where the officer knew of criminal activity in the area and was concerned for his safety.Officer detained defendant for drinking in public in violation of a local ordinance. The detention occurred in front of a liquor store in a high narcotics area. The officer had personal experience with paroled persons in this precise location who were armed. He conducted a pat search of defendant and observed a baggie protruding from one pocket. He removed the baggie and discovered three small yellowish rocks that proved to be rock cocaine. Evidence supported the magistrate's finding that the pat search was proper as it was motivated by a legitimate concern for the officer's safety.id: 11006
Pat search of defendant was proper where he was driving two people who were the subjects of drug related search warrants at night.Defendant was the driver of a car containing two people who were the subjects of drug related search warrants and the car had been identified to the officers as likely to return to the house which was the other such subject. The incident took place at night. Under the circumstances the pat down search of defendant was reasonable.id: 11007
Pat-search was necessary where the officer had a duty to transport appellant from the highway.Officer stopped a vehicle in which the driver had a suspended license and a false registration. The officers decided to have the car impounded and drive the three occupants to Denny's restaurant where they could arrange for transportation home. Appellant, a passenger in the vehicle, argued that the subsequent pat-search was improper because he had not been informed that he had a right to refuse the ride and thereby avoid the search. However, the officer had a duty to transport appellant since none of the occupants had a valid driver's license or registration and since walking on the freeway is illegal. The exigency which existed and the need for public safety supported the officer's conducting a minimally intrusive pat-down search of appellant's outer clothing.id: 11009
Police dog's biting and holding of defendant in the bushes at 4:30 a.m. constituted a detention rather than an arrest.Officer and his police dog were dispatched to search an area the perpetrator had last been seen following a burglary. The officer gave the command to search and bite and the dog found defendant and locked his jaw on defendant's head. Defendant argued that he was arrested and that the arrest was made without probable cause. However, defendant was detained not arrested. The physical restraint did not transform the detention into arrest where the officer had been told the perpetrator was armed and dangerous. Moreover, even if the dog's biting and holding defendant constituted an arrest it was supported with ample probable cause where the suspects had been observed one-half hour earlier running into some bushes in a field at 4:30 in the morning. The mere possibility the dog may have bitten an innocent person did not mean the officer acted without probable cause.id: 11010
Police request for identification did not constitute a detention.A police request for identification during a street encounter does not amount to a detention in the sense that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave under the circumstances.id: 11011
Searching fanny pack for a weapon after defendant removed it and was seated in the patrol car was a permissible extension of a Terry preventive search.During an ongoing, on-the-street, close range investigation of a report of defendant's threatening conduct, the deputy observed what he suspected was the outline of a handgun in the outer compartment of defendant's fanny pack. The officer asked defendant to remove the fanny pack and walk away. The officer's subsequent search of the fanny pack while defendant was seated in the patrol car was an objectively reasonable preventive measure to assure there were no weapons within defendant's grasp during the investigation of the reported disturbance.id: 11014
Supreme Court holds that asking bus passengers for permission to search their luggage is not a seizure per se.Without articulable suspicion, two uniformed officers boarded a bus and asked the defendant for consent to search his luggage after advising him that he had the right to refuse. The trial court found that the defendant consented, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, adopting a per se rule that every encounter on a bus is a seizure. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officer's request or otherwise terminate the encounter. The case was remanded to the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether, on the facts of this case, a seizure occurred. Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens dissented.id: 11015
Supreme Court holds that suspect who flees from police is not seized until he is physically arrested or submits to show of authority.Respondent, a juvenile, fled at the approach of an unmarked police car. An officer wearing a jacket with the word Police, ran after respondent and cut off his escape route. The respondent was looking behind him as he ran and did not turn to see the officer until the officer was almost upon him, whereupon respondent tossed away a small rock. The officer tackled him, and the police recovered the rock, which proved to be crack cocaine. In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that respondent was not seized until he was tackled. Thus the cocaine abandoned while he was running was in this case not the fruit of a seizure and his motion to exclude evidence of it was properly denied. Justices Stevens and Marshall dissented.id: 11016
Transporting the detained suspect to the hospital for an in-field identification was not unconstitutional.Defendant argued that even if the initial detention was valid, the subsequent handcuffing and transportation to the hospital for the in-field identification was so overly intrusive that it exceeded the constitutionally permissible boundaries of an investigative detention. However, the officer's actions in transporting the suspects to the hospital rather than attempting to transport the hospitalized victim to the location of the suspects was reasonable. Even assuming it would have been possible to interrupt the hospital examination, time would have been wasted in finding the victim and causing termination of the examination. Moreover, the fact that defendant was handcuffed while being detained did not transform the detention into an arrest.id: 11017
When investigating a prowler in a commercial area a pat down of defendant who had been sitting in a car and did not speak English was not unreasonable.The officer was investigating a report of a possible prowler in a commercial area in which all businesses were closed. The officer approached defendant and his wife, the only people in the area, while they were sitting in their car. He asked for identification which was not provided. Defendant and his wife continued to talk to each other in Spanish which the officer did not understand. Requesting defendant to step out of the car and then patting him down for weapons was not unreasonable under the circumstances.id: 11018
Detention did not evolve into an arrest under the Fourth Amendment where the defendants were transported three blocks to a parking lot and detained for approximately 30 minutes.A murder was committed in the course of a robbery in San Jose. Witnesses saw several young Asian males and gave similar but not exact descriptions of the getaway car and license plate numbers they had, as well as a few variations into the computer, and one variation described defendant's car. Defendant lived in Oakland and Oakland police were notified. A motorcycle officer in Oakland saw several Asian males enter the vehicle, drive away, and act suspiciously when they saw the officer following. The officer stopped the car along with other officers with guns drawn. The detention was permissible despite the lack of a consensus as to the description of the car or exact license plate numbers. That San Jose officers did not request a detention was immaterial in light of the Oakland officer's observations.id: 10994
Motorcycle was not detained where it had already pulled over to the curb before the officers completed their u-turn or displayed any gesture of authority.Officers noticed a motorcycle pulling away from the curb in front of a house known for gang activity. They made a u-turn, intending to make a traffic stop. The motorcycle was not detained for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Since it had already voluntarily pulled over to the curb before the officers completed the u-turn or displayed any gesture of authority such as using overhead lights or a siren, there was no restraint of liberty by the police. Moreover, the officer's order to the passenger to remove his hands from his jacket pockets did not transform the consensual encounter into a detention.id: 10995
Officer had a reasonable belief that the lump discovered during the patdown was contraband.The officer found a scale with the smell of methamphetamine on it. In addition, defendant possessed two beepers and a small plastic bag. When the officer searched defendant, he felt an unusual lump beneath defendant's pants. The officer's tactile perception of the lump, combined with the other circumstances created a reasonable inference that the lump was contraband. He had probable cause to arrest defendant when he first touched the object and therefore the warrantless search was proper.id: 10996
Officer was permitted to withdraw the liquor bottle discovered during the patdown.Officer was investigating a report that a panhandler at the drugstore had been creating a disturbance. Appellant matched the description of the suspect. While the officer talked to appellant he noticed a large bulge in the waistband of appellant's trousers. He patted appellant down and felt the object. He believed it was a bottle and withdrew it. Appellant argued the officer had no right to pull out the object after he knew it was a bottle rather than a conventional weapon such as a gun or knife. However, a fifth of liquor carries substantial weight and the neck of the bottle can be used as a handle. Moreover, once broken, the bottle may be used as a slashing weapon.id: 10997
Officer's act of seizing defendant's wrist and removing his hand from his pants pocket was lawful.During a consensual encounter defendant suddenly put his hand into his bulging pocket. Grabbing and extricating defendant's hand in a single defensive maneuver was a reasonable response to defendant's potentially threatening conduct. The officer was not required to conduct a patdown search to determine whether the bulge felt like a weapon.id: 10998
Officer's detection of rock cocaine during weapons search furnished probable cause to remove the baggie and arrest appellant.Where an outside clothing pat search reveals the presence of an object of a size and density that reasonably suggests the object might be a weapon, the searching officer is entitled to continue the search to the inner garments where the object is located in order to determine whether the object is in fact a weapon. Moreover, the officer's tactile perceptions developed through years of experience as a police officer and his multiple exposures to rock cocaine, furnished probable cause to remove the baggie and its contents and arrest appellant.id: 10999
Information from the reliable informant that defendant was delivering drugs to the residence coupled with defendant's arrival at the residence provided probable cause to arrest and search.While executing a search warrant at a residence, officers received information from a confidential reliable informant that a man driving a red pickup truck would be delivering narcotics to the address they were searching. The red truck then approached and the driver (defendant) fit the informant's description. As he approached the house the officer identified himself and as defendant backed away the officer lunged at defendant and handcuffed him. Officer then performed a pat search and discovered a container of narcotics. Defendant argued the encounter was not a detention but an arrest without probable cause. The court agreed the encounter was an arrest but found there was probable cause to believe defendant had narcotics on his person.id: 10934
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245