Reasonable Suspicion to Stop or Detain
Category > Reasonable Suspicion to Stop or Detain
Updated 7/12/2024Defendant’s actions in ducking behind a car and pretending to tie his shoes in an apparent attempt to avoid police interaction at night in a high crime area did not amount to reasonable suspicion justifying a detention.Defendant was detained around 10:00 pm in an area known for narcotics and gang activity. Police justified the detention by defendant’s suspicious behavior from seeing them as he ducked behind a car and pretended to tie his shoes. However these actions in this area did not provide reasonable suspicion for the detention.id: 28305
Updated 2/24/2024Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop a driver acting suspiciously near the border.The Border Patrol agent stopped the defendant who was driving in a well-known smuggling corridor in a car that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border within the week. Defendant slowed and changed lanes after the officer pulled along side her in an unmarked car, rolled down his window and stared at her. She drove about 50 miles per hour to stay behind him and refused to look at him when she passed him a few minutes later. There was no reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity that would justify a detention, and the stop was improper as it was based on a mere hunch of the officer. id: 26639
Updated 2/1/2024Vehicle Code section 22108 was not violated where defendant failed to activate his turn signal 100 feet before coming to a stop.The trial court erred in denying defendant’s suppression motion because the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Defendant had signaled a turn but the basis for the stop was that he did not activate his signal blinker for the 100 feet he drove before coming to a stop. However, defendant’s turn did not violate the Vehicle Code.id: 27948
Defendant was detained when the officer pulled in behind him, and the detention was unreasonable since he was parked and was not required to have his headlights illuminated.Defendant was detained when the officer made a u-turn to pull in behind him and trained spotlights on his car. It did not matter that the officer did not block him in or activate the colored emergency lights. Moreover, the detention was not justified as the officer noticed that defendant’s fog lights, but not his normal headlights were illuminated. It is unlawful to drive at night using only fog lights but defendant was not driving when the officer approached - he was parked.id: 26227
Police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain defendant who was parked in a dark part of a convenience store parking lot on the side of the store where prior robbers exited. Defendant’s mere presence in a car legally parked on the less illuminated north side of the convenience store, in an area without demarcated parking spaces at a time when other parking spaces were available, did not justify his detention. That the officer was aware of prior robberies at the store and that in some instances the robbers had exited on the north side of the parking lot, without more, did not raise a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in a crime. id: 24514
Police did not have reasonable suspicion to detain a young black man who resembled someone who committed a sex crime at the location the previous week.Police detained the young black defendant as he exited a late night train. However, the officer had no reasonable suspicion of defendant's involvement in criminal activity. That he allegedly resembled someone who committed a sex crime at the police station the previous week did not justify the stop. The facts that the stop occurred in the same location as the earlier crime, and was in a high crime area, were not significant. Because the detention was improper, defendant's conviction for giving a false name to police was also unlawful.id: 22930
The officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for having only a single rear license plate since it was a Florida license plate and Florida issues only a single plate.The officer stopped defendant because his car had a single license plate attached to the rear of the vehicle. It was a Florida license plate. California law requires front and rear plates, and a missing front plate will justify a stop. Florida, however, issues a single rear license plate. The officer made a mistake of law in concluding that a single Florida license plate was a violation of California law. The stop was unlawful because he had no objectively reasonable suspicion that any traffic laws were being violated. The magistrate erred in denying the suppression motion. id: 22237
Police improperly stopped defendant for failing to signal a turn where there were no other vehicles present that could have been affected by the turn. Police improperly detained defendant for failing to signal a right turn within 100 feet of the turn in violation of Vehicle Code sections 22107 and 22108, because those provisions only require that a driver signal a turn where another vehicle might be affected by the turn and there was no other vehicle present that could have been affected by defendant’s turn. id: 22203
Fish and Game warden could not stop defendant’s car based upon his belief that the fish he observed defendant catch with a hand line may have been a lobster.A Department of Fish and Game warden observed defendant fishing from a pier using the hand line
method, which is legal to catch many fish, but illegal to catch lobsters. The warden saw
defendant catch something, place it in a bag and drive away. The warden then stopped
defendant’s car, and searched it, finding a lobster. Contrary to the prosecutor’s argument, Fish
and Game Code sections 1006 and 2012 do not authorize a DFG warden to stop a vehicle
without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct an inspection. Moreover, there was
no reasonable suspicion to detain defendant in this case based on the warden’s belief that the fish
defendant placed in his bag may have been a lobster. id: 21327
Police suspicions that three cars full of black youths in a gang area, after midnight and after a shooting were about to commit a crime did not justify a stop, and the later discovery that one person was subject to a probation search did not justify the illegal stop.Several hours after a gang related shooting, officers stopped three cars driving together (at 12:30 a.m.), in East Side Crips territory, identified one of the occupants of a car as an East Side Crip, and noted the presence of several other black males in the three cars. The circumstances did not provide a particularized and objective basis to suspect someone in defendant's car had committed or was about to commit a crime. The officer's subsequent discovery that one of the occupants of the car was on probation and subject to a probation search condition did not legalize the otherwise unlawful stop.id: 17918
Officer's hunch that a Hispanic person who looked at the threat victim's apartment building as he drove by did not justify the detention.A college student reported to police that unknown "Mexican gang members" had threatened to come to his apartment early the next morning. Four days later, officers noted two Hispanic males drive by and look in the direction of the victim's three story apartment building. The officer had a "gut feeling" the two men were involved in the threats. However, the officer observed no equipment or traffic violations that would justify a stop. The officer's hunch that defendant and his passenger were involved in criminal activity was insufficient to support the objectively reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the detention.id: 18224
Police may not lawfully stop a vehicle with a temporary permit in lieu of license plates based on the belief that such permits are often forged. An officer who sees a vehicle displaying a temporary operating permit in lieu of license plates may not stop the vehicle simply because he or she believes that such permits are often forged. To support a stop the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the particular permit is invalid.id: 20726
Officer's reliance on "pedestrian in the roadway" provision was nothing more than a ruse to stop and search defendant. The police officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant for being a "pedestrian in the roadway" in violation of Vehicle Code section 21954, subd.(a). That provision does not prohibit being in a crosswalk when a car is on the road. It requires that he use a high degree of care in that situation. The officer saw defendant three-quarters of the way through an intersection, which had no crosswalk but was controlled by stop signs. The only visible vehicle was the police car which was not an immediate hazard to anyone. The officer's reliance on section 21954, subd.(a), was nothing more than an impermissible ruse to
stop and search the defendant.id: 19116
The officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain a vehicle that had no license plates but a visible operating permit affixed to the windshield.The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence because the police had no reasonable grounds to stop his vehicle for having no license plates where the police saw a temporary operating permit affixed to his windshield. The officer's claim that such operating permits are "very often" forged was vague and insufficient to justify the stop.id: 19412
The police unreasonably detained defendant for drinking in public where he was inside his gated apartment complex. The officer detained defendant because he suspected defendant was illegally drinking alcohol in a public place. However, he was detained inside his gated apartment complex which was not readily accessible to the public. Thus, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for drinking in a public place.id: 19560
There was no reasonable suspicion to justify the detention of a person acting suspiciously in a parked car outside of a 7/11 following reports of other local stores being robbed. Police had been made aware that several robberies had recently been committed at 7/11 stores. The officer drove into a 7/11 parking lot before midnight and saw defendant's car running and parked near an exit. The officer heard a thud as he approached the car and defendant tried to avoid contact. The officer asked defendant to retrieve his ID which he suggested he did not believe the noise he heard represented danger. The record did not show defendant matched the physical description of the robbers at the time he was detained. That the officer's hunch
turned out to be right did not retroactively justify the detention.id: 19577
The prosecution failed to show there was reasonable suspicion that defendant committed a traffic violation where the officer acknowledged that he did not even look for a temporary operating permit before initiating the stop. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving a reasonable suspicion existed for stopping the minivan in light of the officer's testimony indicating his indifference about the minivan's possible display of a temporary operating permit and the lack of evidence that he looked for one before initiating the stop.id: 20020
There was no reasonable suspicion to detain a person walking in the area of a suspected drug house, where two others were acting suspicious, and there was a month-old "be on the lookout" bulletin for defendant which was based on the allegation of an untested informant.The court erred in denying the suppression motion since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant. Initially, there was a "be on the lookout" bulletin for defendant which was issued a month earlier and based only on the allegation of an untested informant. Next, the officer believed a nearby house was a site for drug activity based upon an arrest a few weeks earlier. Also, two pedestrians in the area were acting in a suspicious manner at the time defendant walked around the corner. However, there was no information linking defendant to the suspected drug site, the suspicious pedestrians or any criminal activity. The officer's hunch that defendant may have been involved in illegal activity was insufficient to justify the detention.id: 17822
Supreme Court says anonymous tip lacked sufficient indicia of reliability for Terry stop.An anonymous caller reported to the police that a young, black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. Two officers arrived at the bus stop about six minutes later and saw three black males "just hanging out [there]." One of them, defendant, was wearing a plaid shirt. One of the officers approached him, told him to put his hands up on the bus stop, frisked him, and seized a gun from his pocket. The second officer frisked the other two individuals, against whom no allegations had been made, and found nothing. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court affirmed the Florida trial court's suppression order. The court said the anonymous call "provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." "The reasonable suspicion here at issue requires that a tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person." The court rejected "an automatic firearm exception," but left open the possibility that "the danger alleged in an anonymous tip might be so great as to justify a search even without a showing of reliability." "Nor do we hold that public safety officials in quarters where the reasonable expectation of Fourth Amendment privacy is diminished, such as airports ... cannot conduct protective searches on the basis of information insufficient to justify searches elsewhere."id: 15056
Being a passenger in a car stopped for an unsignaled lane change is not sufficiently suspicious behavior to justify a detention.Officer stopped a vehicle for an improper lane change. Defendant, the passenger, started to get out of the car and the officer commanded him to get back inside the car. Officer had no reason to suspect defendant was involved in any illegal activity. While inchoate concerns for officer safety may justify minimal intrusions, defendant was unlawfully detained and all that followed was a product of that detention.id: 11030
Office's observation of appellant in the general location identified in the radio broadcast was insufficient to justify a detention.Officer heard a radio broadcast which reported a possible gang fight involving ten to twelve black persons including one possibly armed. As he approached the area he detained appellant because appellant was fleeing from other officers. He admitted he had no basis for detaining appellant aside from the information contained in the radio broadcast. The record was void of any evidence of the source of the information contained in the radio broadcast. The record was void of any evidence of the source of the information contained in the radio broadcast. The officer's observation of appellant in the general location identified in the radio broadcast was wholly insufficient to justify a detention. Moreover, appellant's flight from an attempted unlawful detention could not support the juvenile court's finding that appellant had resisted arrest.id: 9786
Facts that defendant was Spanish speaking, drove a car with a trunk and appeared nervous at agricultural inspection did not constitute reasonable suspicion justifying detention.Immigration officer argued he had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant who was stopped at an agricultural inspection station. The purported factors justifying the detention were that defendant was driving a car with a trunk; he did not look directly at the officer while dealing with the agricultural inspection, he kneaded his hands on the steering wheel appearing nervous, and he appeared Hispanic and spoke Spanish better than English. These factors did not provide reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was an illegal alien and the detention was improper.id: 11047
Detention based on presence in a deserted parking lot early in the morning was improper.There was a detention where the officer shined his spotlight on defendant, stopped the patrol car, both deputies got out and stood behind the car door, and one commanded defendant to approach so the deputy could speak to him. The sole ostensible ground for the detention was defendant's presence in the deserted parking lot of a shopping center whose businesses were closed. The circumstances were devoid of indicia of his involvement in criminal activity and the detention was therefore illegal.id: 11033
Detention of appellant while walking down the street in a high crime area was unreasonable.Officer testified that the only information he received about appellant was that he was leaving the region under surveillance. When the officer observed appellant at approximately 7:25 p.m., he and his companion were merely walking down the street in a high crime area. Under the circumstances the detention was unreasonable.id: 11036
The fact that a homeless looking person had a nice camera and acted nervous did not justify the detention.Officer observed defendant on a summer day wearing blue jeans, but no shirt or shoes and he had a 35 millimeter camera hung around his neck. He was carrying a duffel bag and a grocery bag and looked like a transient to the officer. When the officer approached, the defendant ran. The officer's conclusion that defendant did not fit the camera did not justify the detention.id: 9800
There was no reasonable suspicion to justify the detention of a person visiting a residence that was being searched.Police were executing a search warrant when the defendant approached the house and knocked on the door. While the police had reason to believe they would find methamphetamine in the house, there was no evidence linking defendant to any illegal activity. The mere fact that he might have been an occupant of the house did not justify the search. The people also argued that when the police found the narcotics at the residence, it became a high crime area and cast suspicion on anyone who came visiting. However, that a person chooses to visit friends or relatives who reside in a high crime area does not justify the police viewing that visit with suspicion.id: 9801
Supreme Court requires de novo review of reasonable suspicion; probable cause.In an 8-1 opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that as a general matter determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause should be reviewed <i>de novo</i> on appeal. However, the court hasten[ed] to point out that a reviewing court should take care both to review findings of historical fact only for clear error and to give due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers. The court recognized that a trial judge views the facts of a particular case in light of the distinctive features and events of the community; likewise a police officer views the facts through the lens of his police experience and expertise. The background facts provide a context for the historical facts, and when seen together yield inferences that deserve deference."id: 10930
Updated 3/7/2024Defendant’s flight in a high crime area did not provide reasonable suspicion to support the detention.Defendant’s flight from police in a high crime area mid-afternoon did not establish reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a detention. Although defendant’s act may be suggestive of wrongdoing, it did not corroborate any reliable or articulable suspicion of actual criminal behavior. id: 26355
Updated 2/7/2024Police had reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop after observing defendant, at night in a high crime area, crouch and stay down behind a car after seeing police. Police were patrolling a high crime area at night when they saw defendant crouch behind a car, and failed to stand up when exposed to the spotlight. The defendant’s act of ducking, freezing and not rising fast enough gave the police reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.id: 27237
The bus driver’s report that a passenger resembled a 288 suspect he had seen on a flier justified a brief stop of the suspect. A city bus driver contacted police after seeing a passenger who resembled the suspect he had seen in a flier relating to a child molest incident. The responding officer hadn’t seen the flier but was aware of a video and had seen on the news that the suspect was white. The information provided to the officer by the bus driver was sufficient to justify a brief stop of the defendant to determine whether he was the 288 suspect even though there was no probable cause for an arrest.id: 25450
The experienced officer’s visual estimation of defendants’ speed as they were both driving provided reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.Defendants argued the officer’s observations, while driving, did not establish reasonable suspicion to show their car was traveling 35 miles per hour in violation of the 25 miles per hour speed limit. However, the officer’s visual estimate of defendants’ speed as he was also driving was sufficiently grounded in objective facts to constitute reasonable suspicion that defendants were speeding.id: 24745
An anonymous claim of reckless driving from a 911 call provided reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car. After a 911 caller reported that a vehicle had run her off the road, a police officer located the vehicle she identified during the call and executed a traffic stop. The stop complied with the Forth Amendment because, under the totality of circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated.id: 23882
Police did not detain defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes when they asked for and retained his identification card. The Fourth Amendment is not implicated when a police officer asks to see a person’s identification card. Contrary to defendant’s claim, he was not seized during the time that the officer possessed his driver’s license as a reasonable person in his situation would have felt free to ask the officer to return his license. There was a reasonable suspicion to detain defendant anyway, where the police had been informed of a robbery by two young black men driving a dark SUV who identified themselves as members of a certain gang, and defendant who fit the description was driving a dark SUV in the gang neighborhood with the back door open suggesting someone else might have hastily fled.id: 23224
Detention was lawful where police were told that defendant threatened to shoot the football coach after a game.Police received a tip from a known, but undisclosed person, that defendant threatened to shoot his son’s football coach after a game. Defendant said he would carry out his threat in the parking lot. There was reasonable suspicion to detain defendant. id: 23320
Defendant’s failure to signal a turn at the intersection justified the stop. Defendant argued the Vehicle Code did not require that he signal his turn before entering the intersection. However, he was wrong about the law, and he was required to signal. His failure to do so justified the officer’s stop and there was no error in denying the motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop.id: 23570
The officer properly detained appellant who appeared to be texting while driving.An officer observed defendant parked on the side of the road using a cell phone to send a text message. Five minutes later, defendant was engaged in conduct the experienced officer believed involved texting while driving. This activity justified the officer’s detention.id: 23070
Police properly stopped defendant for parking in red zone. Police officers stopped defendant because he had illegally parked in a red, no parking zone. He argued the stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights because a parking violation is subject to civil (not criminal) enforcement, and once he began to leave, the only way the officers could have cited him was to file a notice with the processing agency. However, although parking penalties are enforced through a civil administrative process, violations are still part of the traffic laws and may justify a stop by police.id: 22308
The stop was reasonable where the DMV check showed the registration expired two years earlier but the car had a temporary registration affixed to the rear window.Officers ran a computer check on a vehicle through DMV records which indicated the vehicle’s registration had expired two years earlier. There was no mention of a temporary permit although the vehicle had one affixed to the rear window. Presented with ambiguous evidence of a possible inconsistency between a registration that expired two years earlier and the temporary permit on display, a stop to investigate the status of the registration was objectively reasonable. id: 21845
The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain a car traveling on a highway at 40 miles per hour late at night in an area known for auto thefts and burglaries.The police stopped defendant’s car late at night in an area known for vehicle tampering and thefts. The car was traveling on the highway 15 miles per hour below the speed limit. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to suspect that the driver of the car was attempting to avoid contact with the police.id: 21757
Police had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant’s vehicle where they suspected he was about to commit a shooting and could not see through the tinted side window. Defendant argued the stop of his vehicle was pretextual because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe the tinted windows violated the applicable Vehicle Code provisions. Police had facts suggesting defendant was ready to commit a retaliatory murder. Thereafter, the officer testified he could not see through the driver’s tinted side window. There was sufficient suspicion to justify the detention.id: 21579
Police had reasonable suspicion to stop the truck with no license plates and had no duty to search the exterior for a temporary registration before the stop.Police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s truck which did not have a front or rear license plate. Moreover, it was dark and there was no evidence that the officer saw a temporary operating permit affixed to the rear window. The officer did not have a duty to search the exterior of the vehicle for evidence of a temporary registration before stopping the vehicle.id: 21278
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant in a parking lot based on lighting malfunctions on his Jeep they observed after he entered the complex.Defendant argued his detention was improper because police did not have reasonable suspicion that he committed traffic violations on a highway. However, the stop was justified because the rear license plate on defendant’s jeep was not illuminated and one of his headlights was not illuminated. Although the detention occurred in a parking lot which is not a “highway” for purposes of the Vehicle Code, the officers saw the Jeep with its lighting malfunctions when it passed them several minutes after entering the complex. id: 20907
The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a car without license plates and was not required to drive around the car to look for a permit on the windshield before stopping the vehicle.An officer was driving behind defendant’s car and saw neither license plates nor a temporary permit. Under the circumstances, the officer was permitted to stop the car in order to continue the investigation. He was not required, as defendant argued, to drive around the vehicle to check for a temporary permit. id: 20727
Lane change without signaling may have affected the driver seven cars lengths behind and therefore violated section 22107 and justified the stop.Defendant argued he was improperly stopped by police for changing lanes without using a turn signal because there was no traffic that could have been affected by the lane change since the closest car was approximately seven lengths behind. However, defendant’s unsignaled lane change could have affected the driver and thus violated Vehicle Code section 22107. The stop was therefore proper.id: 20528
The police had reasonable suspicion to stop a person driving with an upside down license plate.Driving with an upside down licence plate constitutes a violation of Vehicle Code section 5201 which provided a lawful basis for police to stop the vehicle.id: 20120
Supreme Court upholds drug testing for students involved in any extracurricular activity.In Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), the Supreme Court held that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes at public high schools does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Here, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, extended Vernonia, holding that a policy that required all public middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity was a reasonable means of furthering the school district's interest in preventing and deterring drug use.id: 20143
Supreme Court reverses Ninth Circuit's decision that limited the facts relied on for reasonable suspicion.In U.S. v. Arvizu, 217 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's finding that a Border Patrol officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car. The court held that several factors on which the officer relied, including the fact that defendant's car slowed when the officer approached, defendant's failure to acknowledge the officer, and defendant's children's odd conduct, should not be considered in the reasonable suspicion calculus. It found four other factors of such low probative value that no reasonable officer would have relied on them: (1) a mini-van stopped in the past month on the same road contained marijuana; (2) the officer did not recognize the mini-van as belonging to a local resident; (3) the van was registered to an address in a block notorious for smuggling; and (4) the children's knees were raised as if their feet were resting on something. The court found that the officer had properly relied on three other factors - the road was sometimes used by smugglers, defendant came up the road near the Border Patrol shift change; and he was driving a car the type sometimes used by smugglers - but it held that these three factors, singly or together, did not constitute reasonable suspicion. A unanimous Supreme Court, in a decision by Chief Justice Rehnquist, reversed, finding that the Ninth Circuit's analysis had "depart[ed] sharply from the teachings" of prior Supreme Court reasonable suspicion decisions by using a "divide and conquer analysis" that considered each of the factors on which the officer relied in isolation. Using the "totality of the circumstances" approach set forth in its prior cases, the Court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop.id: 20133
Supreme Court reaffirms power to arrest for a fine-only traffic violation despite "pretext" claim.The officer stopped defendant for speeding and having an improperly tinted windshield. When he saw defendant's license, he realized that he was aware of "intelligence" about defendant "regarding narcotics." The officer arrested defendant for speeding, driving without his registration and insurance documents, carrying a weapon (a rusted roofing hatchet), and improper window tinting. The Arkansas Supreme Court suppressed the evidence finding the arrest was merely a "pretext" for an inventory search that turned up methamphetamine. In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed, reaffirming its decision in <i>Atwater v. Lago Vista</i>, 532 U.S. ____, 2001 (which upheld an arrest for a fine-only traffic violation), and reaffirming its decision in <i>Whren</i> v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (which held that an officer's "[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis"). The court said the fact the <i>Whren</i> involved a traffic stop, rather than a custodial arrest, "is of no particular moment." Justice Ginsburg concurred specially, joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor and Breyer to suggest that the court may want to reconsider its holdings if experience demonstrates "anything like an epidemic of unnecessary minor-offense arrests."id: 15126
Police had reasonable cause to stop defendant's car after noticing an air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror which may have obstructed the driver's view.Police had reasonable cause to stop defendant's car after noticing a tree-shaped air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror. The officer concluded that the air freshener obstructed defendant's view through the front windshield in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subd.(a)(2).id: 20008
The officer who observed defendant's car weaving had reasonable suspicion to stop him for possible drunk driving. Defendant argued that a single weave or swerve was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to detain him for drunk driving. However, the officer reported "weaving" and that he almost hit a curb. The reasonable inference is that defendant was weaving as he drove and this was sufficient cause to stop the vehicle.id: 19685
911 call reporting shots fired with a description of the perpetrator justified the initial detention.Defendant argued the 911 call was insufficient to justify his initial detention. However, the conduct of shooting a gun on a residential street posed a risk of grave danger to anyone nearby. Moreover, there was no reason to fear the anonymous call was a hoax and since she said it was the third time this had happened it was likely she knew defendant and had reason to believe he would fire a gun. The caller also provided a firsthand, contemporaneous description of the crime as well as a description of the perpetrator and his location.id: 19518
The police properly stopped defendant's vehicle for a possible violation of the law requiring valid license plates even though defendant's new car had a temporary registration taped to the windshield.Defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion where the evidence of his intoxication was obtained after the police stopped his car for failing to display a rear license plate. The car was new and did not have a rear
licence plate or any auto dealer designation in its place. Instead, the car had a registration paper taped to the front windshield. The suspected violation of Vehicle Code section 5200 (requiring visible license plates) justified the stop, even though defendant had not violated the provision. The officers were not required to inspect the front windshield before stopping the vehicle. Once the lawful stop was made, police may discover the driver is intoxicated.id: 19400
An anonymous and uncorroborated tip regarding a possibly intoxicated highway driver provides reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a temporary detention to investigate further. Police may conduct a limited traffic stop to confirm an
officer's reasonable suspicion of drunk driving following an uncorroborated phone-in tip that accurately describes the vehicle and its location and relates that a possible intoxicated person is behind the wheel, "weaving all over the roadway."id: 19122
Police had reasonable suspicion to detain a vehicle missing a front license plate where the registration tabs on the rear plate had expired but the rear window displayed a current permit. A police officer may order a traffic stop to investigate possible Vehicle Code violations where the vehicle's front license plate is missing and the registration tabs on the
rear plate have expired but the rear window displays what appears to be a current temporary operating permit.id: 19129
Campus police had authority to detain defendant a block off campus late at night due to his acceleration of speed and loss of traction.Defendant's acceleration of speed and loss of traction at 1:30 a.m. on a street just outside of the San Diego State University campus was sufficient to give the officer reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Moreover, the campus police officer possessed the authority to stop and arrest defendant less than one-tenth of a mile off campus because Penal Code section 830.2 grants state university police authority that extends throughout the state. Finally, the statutes granting police officers authority to act beyond campus boundaries do not unconstitutionally conflict with the authority of charter cities.id: 18611
The traffic stop was lawful where it was based solely on an allegation of erratic driving reported by an anonymous caller on a cellphone.The contents of a call to the police from an anonymous cell phone user gave a patrol officer reasonable cause to briefly stop the motorist's vehicle for purposes of investigating erratic driving. The quantity test for reliability was met because the caller gave the dispatcher the driver's gender, a description of the vehicle, its license number and approximate location. The quality test for reliability was met because the caller gave precise details of the driver's wrong-way driving and making a left turn into oncoming traffic. The caller also named the streets on which the violations occurred. The trial court erred in granting a writ of mandate setting aside the administrative suspension of the defendant's driver's license for drunk driving.id: 18572
CHP officer may pull over a vehicle for an investigatory stop based on a contemporaneous tip of erratic driving that accurately described a vehicle even though the officer did not witness any erratic driving.Defendant argued the CHP officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his van. The officer received an anonymous tip regarding a possible drunk driver due to his erratic driving. The officer then positioned his car on the side of the road and within minutes saw the distinctive van drive by, although the officer did not witness any erratic driving. Even though there were few details regarding the reckless driving tip, and this was a close case, the anonymous tip as corroborated was sufficiently reliable to justify the investigative stop of defendant's van.id: 18093
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
Temporary detention was justified where the police received an anonymous tip of drug activity and the police then saw the truck described by the caller as well as activity that resembled a drug deal.Police received an anonymous call informing them that someone was selling drugs from a ceratin location. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived at the place described and saw the truck which matched the caller's description along with conduct by two people that resembled a drug purchase. While an anonymous call, without more, will not justify a detention, a call coupled with sufficient corroboration of the information provided, will justify a detention. The corroboration in the present case was sufficient to justify the detention.id: 17517
Detention of a minor was proper where police responded to a report of a fight at a youth facility, and the minor who looked like he had been in a fight walked away, after his companion discarded a shiny object.Officers received a radio report regarding a fight at a youth facility. When they arrived, the minor, wearing gang attire, showed signs of having recently been in a fight. His companion was observed throwing a shiny object. When the officers approached, the minor put his hands in his pockets and walked away. Detention of the minor was proper. The subsequent pat search was also proper in light of the previous shootings and stabbings at the facility.id: 16567
License plate was partially obstructed by trailer hitch ball, and the detention of the vehicle on this basis was lawful.A license plate that is partially obscured by a trailer hitch ball violates Vehicle Code section 5201, which in pertinent part requires that license plates be mounted so as to be "clearly visible." The stop of the vehicle based on the partially obscured license plate was lawful.id: 16568
The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain where two men fled upon seeing him and the officer saw what he believed was narcotics paraphernalia on the table and perhaps a weapon in defendant's hand.Defendant and another man were seated at a makeshift table in the backyard of a house the officer believed was vacant. Upon seeing the officer, both men ran. The officer saw something he believed to be narcotics paraphernalia on the table. He also saw defendant holding something that might have been a gun. The officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant.id: 16466
School officials may detain a student on school grounds absent suspicion of criminal activity or violation of a school rule.The broad authority of school administrators over student behavior, school safety, and the learning environment requires that the school officials have the power to stop a minor student n order to ask questions or conduct an investigation even in the absence of reasonable suspicion so long as such authority is not exercised in an arbitrary, capricious or harassing manner.id: 16446
Minor was properly detained for riding his bike on a sidewalk without a helmet.The minor's act of riding his bicycle on a sidewalk without a helmet violated Vehicle Code section 21212, subd.(a) and justified his detention.id: 15627
Police may detain a man with an ax riding a bicycle at 3:00 a.m.A police officer would reasonably suspect criminal activity might be afoot upon viewing someone on a bicycle, with an ax, at three in the morning. We would expect a diligent officer to investigate such unusual behavior through the relatively unintrusive means of a detention. This is so even though no recent "ax crime" had been reported.id: 15628
Supreme Court finds reasonable suspicion in unprovoked flight from officers in heavy drug area.Defendant fled upon seeing a caravan of four police vehicles converge on an area of Chicago known for heavy narcotics trafficking. Officers chased and caught him, patted him down, and found a handgun. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion. Although mere presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion, the fact that the stop occurred in a high crime area was relevant. Moreover, it was the defendant's unprovoked flight that aroused suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor, and "headlong flight" is the consummate act of evasion. Contrary to the reasoning of the court below, unprovoked flight is the exact opposite of "going about one's business." Justice Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.id: 15057
Detaining people driving away from the cemetery at night was lawful where the officers reasonably suspected they had been loitering.Police received information that several people were trespassing in the cemetery at night. The officers saw an empty Cadillac parked near the cemetery, and the caller said the trespassers arrived in a Cadillac. The information was corroborated when the police later saw several people driving away from the cemetery in the Cadillac. A subsequent detention was lawful since the officers reasonably suspected the defendants were loitering, prowling or wandering in the private cemetery in violation of Penal Code section 647, subd.(h).id: 14918
Detention of defendant who resembled the composite drawing of the killer was proper notwithstanding the claim of a pretext stop.Defendant argued that his stop was unlawful because it was based on a pretext to investigate other crimes. However, the detective wanted to stop defendant because he resembled the composite drawing of the person who killed the victim. She wanted to investigate whether he was in fact the person. Thus, the facts known to the officer clearly justified a temporary detention for investigation which is all she wanted.id: 11037
Detention of suspect based on his race and red shirt was proper where he was standing near a specifically described suspect.Appellant argued the officer lacked sufficient specific and articulable facts to suspect appellant as the perpetrator, since his only match with the broadcast description was that he was hispanic and wearing a red shirt. However, where a crime is known to have involved multiple suspects, some of whom are specifically described and others whose descriptions are generalized, a defendant's proximity to a specifically described suspect, shortly after and near the site of the crime, provides reasonable grounds to detain for investigation a defendant who otherwise fits certain general descriptions.id: 11038
Detention was justified based on the noise level of the muffler and there was no improper pretext stop.Defendant argued that the initial stop was pretextual and made so that officers could search for drugs when such a search was not otherwise justified. However, the evidence established the vehicle was stopped after the officer heard loud exhaust when the vehicle accelerated. The stop was therefore made pursuant to Vehicle Code section 27150 and since the officer did no more than he was legally entitled to do, the stop was not improper. That the court stated it would not have stopped the vehicle did not make the stop unreasonable. Moreover, there was no improper prolongation of the initial detention where the officer attempted to obtain the driver's license of the driver and to satisfy himself the vehicle was not stolen.id: 11039
Detention was justified in a drug-ridden area where an officer observed defendant's hand-to-hand exchange and defendant's hiding something after the exchange.Defendant was not merely present in a drug-ridden area. He engaged in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand exchange. Though an exchange of an unrecognizable object for money on a street in a high crime area does not justify arrest, it may justify a detention if the area is known for drug sales. Therefore, reasonable grounds to detain defendant existed based on the officer's specific knowledge of prior drug activity in the area and in the carport, defendant's hand-to-hand exchange, and defendant's hiding something in connection with the exchange.id: 11040
Detention was justified where defendant had recently been arrested for drug possession, he was with someone carrying a large wad of money and a citizen reported seeing drug use.The officer observed a person, recently arrested for drug and weapon possession, in an automobile behind a 24-hour market after midnight. His companion carried a big stack or wad of bills and a citizen reported seeing drug use. Under the circumstances, the officer justifiably detained the defendant.id: 11041
Detention was justified where anonymous tip that three men were dealing drugs in the park was corroborated as the officers saw men that fit the description sitting in a car in the park which was in an area known for drug dealing.Officers received a tip from an anonymous informant that three Hispanic males in a two-door blue Buick, California license plate number 1MBK455 were dealing narcotics from their car on the east side of Golden Hill Park. The tip was corroborated by the detaining officers in four ways: 1) officers found three Hispanic males in the described car at the particular location; 2) the area of the detention was a high-volume narcotics dealing location; 3) the three men were conversing in the car, which was consistent with the information given (dealing drugs from the car) although not in itself suspicious; and 4) some exigency occurred because of the report of a crime in progress. The information provided by the anonymous tip was sufficiently corroborated under the totality of the circumstances to provide reasonable suspicion to believe the defendant was engaged in criminal activity.id: 11042
Detention was not improper where police received a bulletin in the middle of the night describing a stabbing suspect on a red bike and defendant somewhat fit the description.At approximately 3:00 a.m., the officer received information in the form of a radio bulletin to be on the lookout for a stabbing suspect. The bulletin gave a physical description of the suspect and reported that he was on a red ten speed bicycle. Defendant was considerably shorter and lighter than the described suspect and had straight rather than curly hair as described. However, because defendant somewhat fit the description and was riding a ten speed red bicycle, the officer could reasonably suspect defendant was trying to evade him after the officer honked his horn in an attempt to stop him. The detention was not improper.id: 11043
Detention was proper where occupants of the car matched description of robbers, the car was leaving the crime area and the car's occupants ducked their heads up and then down when they saw the police car.Given that the robbery occurred just minutes earlier, three Black males matching the general description of the robbers were in a car traveling away from the crime scene on one of two logical escape routes from Coronado Island and the two passengers were furtively trying to conceal themselves when they saw the officer's marked police unit, the detaining officer had sufficient specific and articulatable facts to cause him to suspect the individuals in the car were connected with the reported armed robbery. The detention was proper.id: 11044
Detention was proper where defendant was with the known robber shortly after the robbery and the officers knew there had been two robbers.The detaining offer knew that an armed robbery had been committed two hours before and that the victim had identified Valles (who had a police record for violence) as one of the robbers. The officer had also observed defendant drop Valles off at his home and saw Valles give defendant an object Valles tried to conceal. The facts supported the detention of defendant notwithstanding the possibility of an innocent explanation.id: 11045
Drugs abandoned prior to seizure were not subject to suppression and there was no seizure where defendant failed to yield to a show of authority.Police were conducting surveillance at the residence of a probationer (who had admitted dealing drugs from his home). They observed three men including probationer and defendant leave the residence with a large brown paper bag. When the men had entered probationer's home a few minutes earlier they carried a smaller brown bag and looked around in a hurried manner. Officers pursued the three men in the car and activated their lights. The driver attempted to elude the officers but crashed into a wall. Defendant opened the car door and discarded a weapon and brown paper bag containing cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress those items. The officers' show of authority in pursuing defendants did not amount to a seizure that may have subjected the abandoned items to suppression. Moreover, the detention of defendant was proper given the officer's expertise in drug trafficking, the furtive actions he witnessed and the knowledge that probationer was selling drugs from his residence.id: 11046
Flight in response to the appearance of a police officer does not, without more, justify a detention but it can be a key factor in establishing reasonable suspicion.The California Supreme Court refused to establish a bright-line rule that when a person takes flight at the sight of a police officer he may be detained for questioning. However, flight in response to the appearance of a uniformed officer or a marked patrol car ordinarily is behavior that police may legitimately regard as suspicious, and therefore can also be a key factor in establishing reasonable suspicion to detain in a particular case. In the instant case the presence on the sidewalk at 3 a.m. of two people who appeared to be talking with occupants of a car parked in total darkness in a high crime area, coupled with evasive conduct by the occupants and defendant's sudden flight when the officer directed the spotlight toward the group, justified the brief investigative detention.id: 11048
An officer's knowledge of a recent arrest warrant creates a reasonable suspicion to detain an individual.An officer who has accurate information received through official channels that an arrest warrant recently has been issued for an individual may briefly detain that individual to determine whether the warrant is still outstanding.id: 11029
Defendant was properly detained where he was driving a car containing two people who were the subject of a search warrant.Defendant was the driver of a car containing two subjects of a search warrant which was then being executed. The car was returning to a house which was another subject of the warrant. Moreover, the officer directing the detention did so out of officer safety and the intrusiveness of the detention was minimal. The detention of defendant was proper.id: 11031
Detaining a luxury car involved in counter-surveillance near the site of a PCP lab was proper.Officers described the circumstances of defendant's suspected purchase of ether, its transportation in a luxury, noncommercial vehicle which engaged in numerous counter-surveillance tactics in route to a remote goat ranch owned by a person recently arrested for operating a PCP lab at that site, the detection of the odor of ether near the site, and the feared discovery of the officer's surveillance. All of the events observed by the officers provided reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was involved in the manufacturer of PCP and justified the stop of his vehicle.id: 11032
Detention of a passenger in an illegally parked car for purposes of a warrant check was not unreasonable.Defendant was sitting in the passenger seat of an illegally parked car when an officer approached and asked for identification. The officer then radioed defendant's identity for a warrant check and also requested information regarding the car's registration and ownership. Information came back that defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant and was not the owner of the car. The detention and subsequent arrest were proper. Moreover, placing defendant under arrest rather than permitting him to post bail was not improper.id: 11034
Detention of appellant driving without his headlights on in a private parking lot was reasonable.At 2:00 a.m, an officer stopped appellant driving in a commercial parking lot without his lights on. The officer subsequently determined appellant was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. Appellant argued the detention was illegal because driving without headlights is not one of the Vehicle Code provisions which can be enforced in privately owned parking lots. However, in view of the potential harm to the public if appellant drove on to the public street he was heading towards, without his headlights on, the officer's detention of appellant was reasonable.id: 11035
Supreme Court allows police to order passengers out of lawfully-stopped car.In <i>Pennsylvania v. Mimms</i>, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a police officer may, as a matter of course, order the driver of a lawfully stopped car to exit his vehicle. Here, in a 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court extended that rule to apply to passengers as well. The majority reasoned that danger to an officer from a traffic stop is likely to be greater when there are passengers in addition to the driver in the stopped car. The court recognized that although there is not the same basis for ordering the passengers out of the car as there is for ordering the driver out, the additional intrusion on the passenger is minimal. Justices Stevens and Kennedy dissented, arguing that this case takes the unprecedented step of authorizing seizures that are unsupported by any individualized suspicion whatsoever.id: 10985
Supreme Court is unable to articulate precisely what reasonable suspicion and probable cause mean.In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court said [a]rticulating precisely what 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with 'the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians act.' As such, the standards are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." The Supreme Court has described reasonable suspicion simply as a a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The court has said probable cause exists where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found. These two legal principles are not finely-tuned standards, but are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular context in which the standards are being assessed."id: 10929
Supreme Court holds that anonymous tip was sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion for stop.Police received an anonymous telephone call stating that Vanessa White would be leaving 235-C Lynwood Terrace Apartments at a particular time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right tail light lens broken, that she would be going to Dobey's Motel and that she would be in possession of about an ounce of cocaine inside a brown attache case. The police went to the apartment, saw defendant leave the building with nothing in her hands and enter the station wagon. As defendant drove toward the motel, the police stopped her, obtained permission to search, and found marijuana in an attache case in the car. Later, during booking, they also found three milligrams of cocaine in her purse. In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice White, the Supreme Court held that the anonymous call was sufficiently corroborated by the officer's observations to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop. Justices Stevens, Brennan and Marshall dissented.id: 9798
Totality of the circumstances test governs reasonable suspicion for stop.Rejecting the Ninth Circuit's effort to refine the requirements of reasonable suspicion, a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court held that reasonable suspicion requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Here the agents knew that the defendant (1) paid $2,100 cash for two airplane tickets from a roll of $20 bills; (2) he traveled under a name different from that listed to his telephone number; (3) his original destination was Miami, a source city for illicit drugs; (4) he stayed in Miami only 48 hours, even though a round-trip ticket from Honolulu takes only 20 hours; (5) he appeared nervous; and (6) he checked none of his luggage. Any one of these factors was consistent with innocent travel. But taken together they amount to reasonable suspicion. Moreover, the fact that these factors may be set forth in a 'profile' does not somehow detract from their evidentiary significance as seen by a trained agent.id: 9802
Supreme Court gives deference to court's finding that inference is reasonable.The Supreme Court noted that what may not amount to reasonable suspicion at a motel located alongside a transcontinental highway at the height of the summer tourist season may raise to that level in December in Milwaukee. Moreover, to a layman the sort of loose panel below the back seat armrest in the automobile involved in this case may suggest only wear and tear, but to [the officer] who had searched roughly 2,000 cars for narcotics, it suggested that drugs may be secreted inside the panel. The court said that [a]n appeals court should give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable.id: 9797
Stop of the car for an expired registration was not an unconstitutional pretext stop despite the investigating motive of the officer.An officer responded to a radio call following a robbery of a motel. The dispatch had reported the robbers were three Black men. An officer saw a car with Black males in the area and followed the car. He noticed the registration was expired and stopped the vehicle. Defendants argued the stop was an unconstitutional pretext for investigating the robbery without reasonable suspicion they were the robbers. However, the subjective motivation of an arresting officer is irrelevant in determining the propriety of a traffic stop. Also irrelevant is the question of whether the stop would have normally been made absent the additional investigatory motive. Stopping the car for an expired registration was legal and proper.id: 9796
Search of student's locker was justified where a parent had called the school and reported that the student had been seen with a gun at a school event.Defendant argued the vice principal searched his locker without a reasonable belief it contained a gun. However, the vice principal acted reasonably in response to a parent's call reporting a particular student had been seen with a gun at a school event. Such a report should be taken seriously by school officials responsible for student safety. Officials should investigate reports that particular students are carrying firearms onto campuses by the minimal intrusion of checking the contents of a student's locker. Such a minimal intrusion is justified particularly when school officials observe the student putting a backpack, a likely place for carrying a gun, into a locker.id: 9794
Stop of fleeing person who was carrying a steak knife was proper.Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant who was in an area known for drug related crime, who fled upon seeing the patrol car and was carrying a steak knife and a pair of scissors.id: 9795
Police properly detained defendant who was standing outside of a business in which the silent alarm had been triggered and walked away upon seeing police.It was objectively reasonable for the officers to suspect defendant was involved in the burglary. The officers found him standing alone at 4:00 a.m. next to a business in which a silent alarm had just been triggered. When he saw the officers he began walking away. The officers acted reasonably in detaining defendant as a possible burglary suspect. Once it was discovered that someone was still inside the business, it was reasonable for the police to temporarily detain defendant in the car until they could stabilize the situation to further question defendant about his possible involvement in the criminal activity.id: 9789
Police properly detained defendant who was congregating with identifiable gang members at a location previously connected with specific criminal conduct.Officer's assessment of defendant's potential criminal involvement was not based upon defendant's happenstance appearance in a high crime area but his congregation with other identifiable gang members at a location previously connected with specific criminal conduct. Further, located only 50 feet away was a van matching the description of the one used in a recent murder, and when the officer made his U-turn and returned to the car, two men fled down the alley. Finally, the officer observed defendant drinking alcohol in public, which is a misdemeanor.id: 9790
Reasonable suspicion supported the detention where defendant was crouched in the corner of a hallway where drugs had been sold in the past and appeared to put something in his mouth and flee up the stairs when officers approached.Officers received an anonymous tip that someone was selling or doing drugs in the hallway of a building. One officer knew from past arrests in the building that rock cocaine was prevalent there. Officers approached defendant crouched over in the corner and ordered him to come towards the officers. Defendant failed to respond and instead made a move toward his mouth with his hand, as though secreting drugs, and then fled up the stairs. This evidence supported the finding of reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed drugs. Moreover, after tackling defendant (which was not an arrest but a forcible detention) officers observed something in his mouth. Probable cause therefore supported the recovery of the cocaine from defendant's mouth.id: 9791
Reasonableness of investigatory stop does not turn on availability of less intrusive techniques.On a statement in <i>Florida v. Royer</i>, 460 U.S. at 500, defendant argued that the investigative methods employed should be the least restrictive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, stating that statement was directed at the length of the stop, not at whether the police had other means to verify their suspicions before stopping Royer. 21The court held that the reasonableness of the officer's decision to stop a suspect does not turn on the availability of less intrusive investigatory techniques.id: 9792
Report of burglary in progress at 3:00 a.m. in a residential area justified the stop of defendant who was the only one in the area.Less than two minutes after receiving the report of a burglary in progress, the officer saw a car leaving the area of the reported burglary. The time was approximately 3:00 a.m., and the officer saw no one else in the area. It was objectively reasonable to suspect the car's occupants were involved in the burglary. Since the officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner in stopping and detaining defendant for investigation, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence.id: 9793
Officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant who was showing others a paper bag in front of a dance hall and left after seeing the police.Defendant was standing in front of a dance hall around 11:35 p.m., and a group was gathered around him. Defendant was holding a small brown paper bag in one hand and was holding it out toward the group. When someone in the group spotted the patrol car he yelled and the group dispersed quickly. The officer returned in about five minutes and again defendant was in front of the dance hall and again quickly walked inside when he saw the officers. The officers had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant and his subsequent abandonment of the bag was not the fruit of an illegal detention.id: 9787
Officers' observation of people exchanging objects at night in a high crime area and fleeing as police approached constituted reasonable suspicion to detain.Officers observed two cars parked in the middle of the street facing opposite directions at night in a high crime area. Several people surrounded the cars and officers observed people lean into the car and exchange objects. When the officers approached the cars, the people fled. Officers had reasonable cause to detain appellant at the time he ran from the scene.id: 9788
It was reasonable to detain defendant who was seated in the passenger seat of a lawfully stopped car where the driver was under the influence and told the officer there were drugs in the car.The officer had a basis to detain defendant, who was seated in the front passenger's seat of codefendant's lawfully stopped vehicle, before he asked defendant to step outside the car. At that time the officer was aware that the driver of the car was under the influence of a stimulant and that there was a bindle of methamphetamine between the seats in the car. The driver had given the officer consent to search the car. It would be unreasonable and unsafe to require the officer to search the car for contraband while the defendant remained seated. It was reasonable to ask defendant to step out of the car and detain him to ascertain his connection to the illegal drugs.id: 9785
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