CPOLS WARRANTLESS SERCH AND SEIZURE VEHICLES
GOOD SEARCH OF VEHICLE? Driver was stopped for tinted windows and the absence of a front license plate. A patsearch led to the discovery of a lawful amount of marijuana and an unspecified amount of cash in the driver's pocket. Officers did not detect the smell of burnt or unburnt marijuana. The driver said he delivered medical marijuana.
These facts did not amount to probable cause to search the car for a marijuana-related offense. (Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853.)
In general, you may not conduct a full search either of the vehicle or of its occupants during a traffic stop or investigative detention. This is because you only have "reasonable suspicion" to detain and lack "probable cause" to arrest or search. (Terry (1968) 392 U.S. 1; Orozco (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 435.) There are, however, three exceptions. What are they?
1. Search of occupants and vehicle for weapons 2. Search of vehicle for license and registration 3. Search in pursuant to Search Conditions
WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR LENGHT OF A TRAFFIC STOP?
A routine traffic stop "must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." (Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500; Bell (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 754, 761.) Typically, this means no longer than the time it takes to perform the duties necessary to warn the driver or issue a citation. A detention "justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.)
A VEHICLE STOP IS ALSO KNOW AS A "DETENTION" OR A________OF THE DRIVER
LIMITED SEIZURE "limited seizure" of the driver, that is, something less than a full arrest but more substantial than a simple "contact" or "consensual encounter." (Wilson (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777.)
GOOD STOP? A patrol officer observed a man, who was walking with an "unsteady" gait and sweating, stumble and break his fall with a nearby shopping cart. The man walked 50 feet to a parked Toyota and entered the passenger side. As the Toyota started to leave, the officer drove over and blocked it with his patrol car.
NO Although the court recognized that the "community caretaking" doctrine would have allowed a detention of the vehicle to investigate the passenger's welfare, the stop of the vehicle in this case was not reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. (Madrid(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1050.)
PASSENGERS...GOOD LINK TO EVIDENCE FOUND NOT IN HIS IMMEDIATE CONTROL? Patrol officers saw a Dodge Grand Caravan in the parking lot of an apartment complex claimed by the Manor Boyz in a high-crime area of Richmond. Brewer, who was sitting in the rear of the van, immediately ducked down behind the driver's seat when the officers approached. The officers told Brewer to get up and put his hands up, but it took several orders for him to comply. Marijuana was found in plain view in the front passenger's possession, and a Glock was under the driver's seat near Brewer.
NO Brewer could challenge the search of the car as fruit of his detention even if he could not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the van itself. (Brewer (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1019.)
GOOD ARREST OF PASSENGER? The arrest of the driver and passenger for burglary and receiving stolen property was based on the observation of numerous cell phones behind the driver's seat and the contents of a canvas bag in the front part of the pickup.
NO No probable cause to arrest the passenger, who had not done or said anything suspicious and to whom the officer had not made any inquiries before the arrest. (Justin B. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 879, 887-888.)
LAWFUL PROLONGED DETENTION? A Nebraska officer stopped a car for driving on the shoulder, completed a written warning, and returned the driver's and passenger's documents (licenses, registration, proof of insurance). At that point, the officer had the driver step out of the car while a narcotics detection dog walked around the car.
NO The dog sniff was not lawful because the driver was detained after completion of the traffic stop. (Rodriguez (2015) 575 U.S. 348; compare Vera(2018) 28 Cal.App.5th--traffic stop for tinted windows was not prolonged by use of canine to sniff for drugs.)
P/C TO SEARCH VEHICLE? After Hall's car was stopped for an equipment violation, the officer who approached could see a clear plastic baggie of a green leafy substance he believed was marijuana in the center console and ashes and burnt cigar wrappers in the cup holders. Green leafy residue was on Hall's lap, but he did not appear to be under the influence. The officer was not asked about the weight of the marijuana, the presence of odors, or to provide a description of the baggie (sealed, zipped, or open).
NO The record did not support a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4), and there was no other basis to justify a search of the car.
GOOD WARRANTLESS SEARCH? Officers discovered that an orange and black motorcycle that was involved in separate traffic infractions likely was stolen and was being kept at Collins' girlfriend's house based on a photo he posted on Facebook. One of the investigating officers located the address and saw what appeared to be a motorcycle under a tarp at the top of the driveway enclosure abutting the house. The officer walked onto the property, lifted the tarp, and obtained the license and VIN numbers to confirm that the motorcycle was stolen.
NO The search could not be based on the automobile exception. That exception does not give "an officer the right to enter a home or its curtilage to access a vehicle without a warrant." (Collins (2018) 138 S.Ct. 1663.)
GOOD SEARCH? Officers asked for permission to conduct a "real quick" "check" of defendant's car. After an intensive 15-minute search, the officer unscrewed the panel off the back of a record cleaning machine found in the trunk.
NO The search exceeded the scope of defendant's limited consent. "A piece of equipment that can only be opened with a screwdriver is analogous to a locked or sealed container." (Cantor (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 961, 967 [note that had the officer qualified his request as a search for drugs, the court might have approved the search].)
VALID SEARCH POST ARREST? Observing Evans' erratic driving and failure to signal a turn, officers initiated a traffic stop. Evans appeared unusually nervous: his hands were shaking and his voice cracked. He would not open his window more than one-half inch to talk to the officers, and he would not comply with the request to step out of the car after being asked at least 10 times to do so. Evans repeatedly asked to speak to a police supervisor and then rolled up the window. Another officer had to break a side window and remove him. Evans was arrested for a violation of Penal Code section 148, and the car was searched. Empty baggies and $65 in cash were found in the center console at the scene, and rock cocaine was discovered hidden in the air vent after the vehicle was impounded.
NO The searches were unlawful under Gant, and they were not justified on the record provided under the Ross automobile exception or as an inventory search. (Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735.) (Note that the searches could have been saved under the inevitable discovery doctrine if the record on inventory policies and practices had been developed.)
REASONABLE TIME DETAINED? An officer on routine patrol stopped two young African-American males because he considered their presence in the neighborhood to be suspicious and also because he wanted to check out their vague resemblance to the description of suspects in some recent robberies. He waited until he observed a violation of the Vehicle Code and then stopped their car. Even though everything checked out and he discovered nothing suspicious, the officer prolonged the detention, patted-down the men, obtained consent to search in an effort to further investigate the robbery connection, and eventually discovered cocaine.
NO The traffic detention was initially proper but was illegally prolonged, and there was an insufficient basis to detain based on a possible connection with the robberies. The cocaine was therefore discovered illegally and had to be suppressed. (Williams (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 349.)
IS IT A DETENTION TO WALK UP TO A DRIVER WHO IS ALREADY STOPPED AND ASK TO SEE THEIR LICENSE?
NO (Gonzales (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1194.)
IS IT A DETENTION TO BRIEFLY SHINE A WHITE LIGHT ONTO A MOVING CAR AND THEN FOLLOW IT UNTIL THE DRIVER DECIDED TO PULL OVER ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT A RED LIGHT DISPLAYED?
NO No detention when officer briefly shined white light into moving car, then followed it without using red light or siren until driver pulled over on his own. (Rico (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 124; Perez (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1492; see Kidd (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 12--pulling behind a parked car and shining spotlight was a detention--versus Tacardon(2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 89 [review granted, S264219]--use of spotlight OK.)
Can we frisk based solely on the location being a high crime activity area?
NO Officers could not further detain and frisk driver based solely on location of traffic stop in high-crime area at midnight. (Medina (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 171.)
GOOD STORAGE? Santa Monica police stopped Williams for driving without a seatbelt. Williams happened to be near his residence and legally parked his rental car along the curb in response to the officer's overhead lights. The officer obtained Williams' license and learned that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant. The officer arrested Williams, impounded the car pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h), and searched it prior to towing.
NO The impound of a car lawfully parked outside the driver's residence was unlawful absent evidence that impounding the car served any "community caretaking" function. (Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 763.)
Is there a Contemporaneous Requirement to search a vehicle post arrest?
NO under the "automobile exception," it is not necessary that the warrantless search of a vehicle take place on the roadside at the time of the stop. Instead, you can tow the car away and search it at a later time, "even after it has been impounded and is in police custody."
LAWFUL PAROLE SEARCH? Officer searched the passenger compartment of defendant's car after learning that the front passenger was on parole. He found syringes in a chips bag and methamphetamine in a pair of shoes in the backseat area.
The front passenger's parole status justified the search. Considering the layout of a standard five-passenger car, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to expect that the parolee could reach back and conceal items inside the chips bag and unclaimed shoes. (Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909.)
GOOD STORAGE? Shafrir was arrested for DUI after a 3 a.m. high-speed CHP chase (up to 110 miles per hour) across the San Francisco Bay Bridge that terminated in Oakland. Shafrir was the only occupant, and the officers decided to impound the late-model Mercedes pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h), and for safekeeping because the area was known for auto thefts.
TRAIL COURT SAID NO - APPELLATE COURT OVERTURNED The People appealed after the trial court suppressed the large bags of marijuana and $50,000 cash found in the inventory of the trunk on the ground that the portion of the CHP manual concerning impounds "lacked 'guidelines in understanding what safekeeping means . . . .'" HELD: The officer's reason for the impound--to protect the Mercedes from theft or damage--was an "eminently reasonable community caretaking justification." The appellate court added that had the car been left in the area and damaged "the recriminations about police misjudgment would have been shrill."
DO BICYCLES FALL UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION?
YES
GOOD SAFETY SEARCH FOR MORE WEAPONS? A pickup truck was stopped at a combination agricultural and Fish and Game checkpoint near the Oregon-California border. The driver said his ducks and weapons were in the back, but when he stepped out to display the waterfowl, a cocked nine-millimeter pistol fell to the seat
YES A protective search of the cab for additional weapons was justified under Long. (Perez (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1178-1179.)
CAN HOUSEBOATS FALL UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION?
YES Assuming you have probable cause, you may search a houseboat without a warrant, at least where the boat is "in public waters, obviously mobile," i.e., either moving or ready to move with the turn of the key. The exception may not apply if the houseboat was "permanently moored."
GOOD SEARCH? Narcotics officers were surveilling a major purchase where the seller drove the buyer's car from a supermarket parking lot back to a residence and loaded it with large plastic garbage bags. The outlines of the rectangular kilo-size packages were visible to the experienced, trained officers, and the suspects engaged in other behavior indicating drug-trafficking (use of pagers, counter-surveillance, etc.). After the car was returned to the parking lot and retrieved by the buyer, the officers stopped it and seized the bags, opening one of them.
YES Because the officers had ample probable cause to believe the bags contained contraband, they could lawfully seize and search them without a warrant. (Rodrigues-Fernandez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 543, 546.)
GOOD PAT DOWN AND SEARCH OF VEHICLE? Collier was a passenger in a car stopped because the front license plate was missing. Officers could smell a strong odor of marijuana in the car, and one officer asked Collier to step out of the car. Collier, who was taller than the officer, was wearing baggy clothing that could conceal a weapon--baggy shorts that hung down to his ankles with a large untucked shirt hanging over the shorts.
YES Collier's attire and the need to conduct a further search of the car for marijuana justified a limited patdown search for weapons. (Collier (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1374.)
VALID EXTENSION OF STOP FOR BACKUP? An officer made a valid traffic stop of a vehicle he suspected might be occupied by two armed robbers and called for backup. When the occupants got out of their vehicle, one was recognized as a "known burglar" and a "white tennis bag" that had been used in the robbery was observed in plain view.
YES Everything was legal because additional suspicious circumstances came to light during the traffic stop without the officers having prolonged the detention or made any separate investigation or intrusion. (Franklin (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 627.)
IS IT A GOOD STOP TO STOP A VEHICLE IF THE R/O'S LICENSE IS SUSPENDED/REVOKED IF THIS IS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE STOP?
YES If the registered owner's license has been revoked, a stop is reasonable unless you have information negating the inference that the owner is the driver. (Glover (2020) 140 S.Ct. 1183--recognizing states' vital interest in ensuring that licensing, registration, and vehicle requirements are followed.)
GOOD PAT DOWN? Officer made a DUI stop at night for erratic driving. The driver gave false identification, admitted he had recently done time for robbery, and was wearing a bulky jacket that he had trouble keeping his hands out of.
YES It was legal to order him out, pat him down, and remove what felt like syringes from his jacket pockets. (Autry (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 365; see also Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 112--bulge under sports coat was enough.)
GOOD SEARCH FOR ID? A Woodland officer observed a car whose driver had twice been reported to police as driving under the influence on the Fourth of July. The driver--Lopez--saw the officer, appeared nervous, and then immediately got out of her parked car and started walking to a residence. When the officer asked Lopez if she had a driver's license, she said she did not, adding that she might have identification in the car. A second officer arrived and picked up Lopez's purse left on the passenger seat. Looking for her identification in a side pocket, the officers found methamphetamine.
YES Obtaining her purse and searching for her identification were not permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Although the officers' conduct comported with existing California Supreme Court precedent in Arturo D., "the Fourth Amendment does not contain an exception to the warrant requirement for searches to locate a driver's identification following a traffic stop." The court overruled that portion of Arturo D. that had approved of limited ID searches. (Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353.) Lopez specifically did not overrule Arturo D. with respect to a limited search of a passenger compartment for vehicle registration. During any vehicle stop, you are entitled to see and examine the driver's license and the vehicle's registration. (Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 430.) The law remains that in any vehicle detention situation where the driver, upon your request, "fails to produce" the necessary documentation, you have the right to conduct a limited search for the vehicle registration.
OK TO STOP? An officer saw an unfamiliar van driving slowly in a circle through a residential neighborhood at 1:30 a.m.
YES Stop of the van was legal because (1) its speed and route were suggestive of a "casing" operation; (2) the officer was very familiar with the neighborhood, its vehicles and local driving patterns and did not recognize the van; and (3) he knew that vans were linked to many residential and auto burglaries that had occurred in the neighborhood. (Remiro (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 809; compare Kidd (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 12--a car parked with only fog lights on in a residential area at 1:30 a.m. did not justify a detention.)
GOOD STOP? CHP received an "anonymous" 9-1-1 call identifying a pickup truck that ran the caller off the road on Highway 1. The truck was stopped southbound on Highway 1 approximately 18 minutes after the call even though the officer did not personally observe impaired driving.
YES The 9-1-1 call was sufficient to provide the officer with reasonable suspicion that the driver had committed a traffic offense in running another car off the road. The officer was not required to allow a possibly impaired driver a second chance for dangerous conduct. (Navarette (2014) 571 U.S. 393.)
VALID VEHICLE SEARCH Thornton tried to avoid driving next to a uniformed officer in an unmarked car. The officer pulled onto a side street and ran a check on the registration tags of Thornton's car, which came back as issued to a different vehicle. Before the officer caught up with him, Thornton had parked and was walking away from his car. Thornton was arrested outside and away from his vehicle.
YES The Belton search of the car was valid. "So long as an arrestee is the sort of 'recent occupant' of a vehicle such as petitioner was here, officers may search his vehicle incident to the arrest." (Thornton (2004) 541 U.S. 615.)
GOOD STOP? Police received an anonymous telephone tip that Vanessa White would be leaving a described address at a given time in a brown Plymouth station wagon with a broken right taillight lens, 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 attaché case. Officers went to the address, observed a car that matched the description, saw a woman come out of the described residence at approximately the anticipated time, not carrying anything, and drive toward Dobey's Motel.
YES The U.S. Supreme Court held that this corroboration made the tip sufficiently reliable to provide reasonable suspicion to detain. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325; see also Pinela-Hernandez (9th Cir. 2001) 262 F.3d 974, 978.)
GOOD STOP? At 1:43 a.m., CHP dispatch reported a possibly intoxicated driver "weaving all over the roadway" in a '80s model blue van traveling northbound on Highway 99. An officer who was less than four miles from where the van was seen positioned himself on the shoulder of Highway 99 to intercept the van. He stopped the van two to three minutes later. He did not observe any weaving, speeding, or other violation of traffic laws before initiating the stop.
YES The anonymous tip of a possible intoxicated driver "weaving all over the roadway" combined with the officer's spotting the described vehicle at the expected time and place provided reasonable suspicion to justify an immediate stop to protect the driver and other motorists. (Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078.)
GOOD DETENTION? An unidentified 9-1-1 caller reported that a light-skinned African-American male with a bandaged left hand who was sitting in the driver's seat of a parked gray Maxima pulled a gun on the caller after mentioning a gang name. The caller was afraid to give his name because of possible retribution.
YES The investigative detention was lawful. The 9-1-1 call was a firsthand report of violent criminal conduct requiring immediate investigation to protect public safety; the call was recorded; the caller, who had given a reason for remaining anonymous, reported immediate and detailed facts; and the police responded within minutes. (Dolly (2007) 40 Cal.4th 458, 461.)
GOOD ARREST OF PASSENGER? Pringle was the front-seat passenger in a car stopped for speeding. A search of the Nissan sedan conducted with the driver's consent uncovered $763 in cash from the glove compartment and five plastic baggies of cocaine behind the back-seat armrest. When questioned, Pringle, the driver, and the back-seat passenger all denied ownership of the money or the drugs.
YES The officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle for possession of the cocaine. A reasonable officer could infer that any or all three of the vehicle's occupants were in possession of the narcotics, either jointly or alone. (Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366.)
P/C TO SEARCH VEHICLE? Car with expired registration smelled of unburnt marijuana, and an unsealed bag of marijuana was visible in the passenger's cleavage. Based on the open container, the officers searched the car and a handbag on the front floorboard containing a loaded firearm
YES The search was justified by the violation of Health and Safety Code section 11362.3, subdivision (a)(4), based on the passenger's unlawful possession of an open container of marijuana. (McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796.)
GOOD SEARCH? Valencia consented to a search of his pickup after he was stopped for a broken taillight. While one officer conducted a cursory search of the cab and cargo area, his partner learned that Valencia might have outstanding warrants. Valencia was transported to the station so that they could determine if the warrants were valid, and his truck was driven to the station by one of the officers. A second search of the truck at the station uncovered cocaine.
YES The second search of the truck was within the scope of Valencia's consent under the very particular facts of this case. The court found it significant that the officers had maintained continuous control over the truck and the contents could have been no different from earlier when consent was given. (Valenica (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 922.) (Note that this case could have been decided against the officers on just a few change of facts.)
LAWFUL SEIZURE? Tran was seen removing his dashboard camera from his car following an at-fault high-speed potentially fatal collision with a motorcycle. Tran admitted putting the camera in his backpack. The investigating officer believed he needed to immediately seize the dashboard camera because it contained evidence and the small SD cards could be easily removed, damaged, or destroyed. The officer seized the camera and later obtained a warrant to view its contents.
YES The seizure was lawful based on probable cause to believe that a crime had been committed and that exigent circumstances required immediately safeguarding the evidence regarding the collision that would be found on the dashboard camera. The court noted that the camera in this case amounted to a container removed from the car. (Tran(2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1.)
GOOD SEARCH? Officers observed Acevedo leave an apartment they had under surveillance carrying a brown paper bag the size of marijuana packages they had seen earlier. Acevedo placed the bag in the trunk of his car; as he drove away, the officers stopped the car, opened the trunk and the bag, and found marijuana.
YES The warrantless search of the bag was legal, even though probable cause to search the remainder of the car was lacking. (Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565.)
GOOD P/C TO SEARCH? Defendant's red Ford F-150 pickup with chrome rims exactly matched a dispatch and was just three miles away from a realtor's open house where a burglary had occurred. It was occupied by an African-American man and woman, who were wearing clothing described in the dispatch and who admitted to having been at the open house.
YES There was probable cause to search the truck for the wallet stolen from the realtor's purse. (Little (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1373.)
P/C TO SEIZE POSSIBLE EVIDENCE? An officer saw defendant standing in the street of a mobile-home park occupied primarily by senior citizens. He knew defendant did not live in the park, that he had been arrested for burglary previously, and that there had been several recent burglaries committed in that neighborhood. Defendant was carrying a rectangular object wrapped in an afghan, and he seemed nervous. When the officer walked up to the car where defendant had placed the object, another occupant said to defendant, "I told you not to do it." When the defendant got out of the car, he had a screwdriver in his back pocket. The officer could see that the object on the seat was a VCR.
YES There was probable cause to seize the VCR as stolen property, even though the officer did not know about a burglary in the area.
GOOD P/C TO SEARCH CAR? An officer checked out a "suspicious vehicle" call one afternoon and discovered four males ducking up and down in a car parked in a high narcotics area of Sacramento. The car was registered in Los Angeles; only one of the occupants had any identification; they were miles from their supposed destination; and in the map pocket behind the passenger seat the officer could see a man's clutch purse that contained a white prescription bottle and a "bundle" of empty tiny white plastic baggies.
YES These circumstances provided probable cause to search the entire car and all containers in the car that might contain drugs. (Nonnette (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 659.)
GOOD SAFETY SEARCH FOR WEAPONS? An officer encountered two men in a car parked in a dark area behind a 24-hour market. Upon recognizing one of them as a recent arrestee for possession of drugs and a dangerous weapon, the officer became alarmed for his safety.
YES Under the circumstances, his alarm justified a limited search of the passenger compartment. (Brueckner (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1500, 1506.)
CAN YOU ASK FOR CONSENT TO SEARCH A RESIDENCE OR VEHICLE AFTER YOU HAVE ARRESTED SOMEONE AND NOT MIRANDIZED THEM?
YES even where the person has been detained, arrested and handcuffed, and/or not Mirandized. (James(1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 22; Llamas (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 441, 447.)
PROPER EXTENSION OF TIME OF STOP? Officer validly stopped a vehicle for suspicion of displaying fictitious plates. He was also concerned about the vehicle possibly being stolen. Although the driver produced a valid Oregon driver's license and vehicle registration, there was a strong "masking" odor of perfume coming from inside the car, and both the driver and passenger gave vague and somewhat conflicting accounts of their purpose and destination. While running further checks, the officer obtained consent to search.
YES he officer's conduct was lawful. The short additional detention was justified, and the consent was voluntary. (Rojas-Millan (9th Cir. 2000) 234 F.3d 464, 469-470.)
GOOD STOP? At 3 a.m., two minutes after the report of a residential burglary in progress, was it legal to stop a car leaving the area even though the officer had no description of the two suspects and did not know if they had a car, where there was no other vehicular or foot traffic.
YES (Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 390.)
CAN ONE WHO IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED DRIVER ON A RENAL AGREEMENT HAVE STANDING ON THAT VEHICLE TO DENY YOUR SEARCH REQUEST?
YES Byrd was not an authorized driver on the rental agreement for the rental car his girlfriend had rented for him. HELD: He could challenge the car search if he was, otherwise, in lawful possession and control of the car. (Byrd(2018) 138 S.Ct. 1518.)
OK TO STOP VEHICLE? A robbery involving two armed African-American men wearing dark clothing with hoods had just occurred five to seven minutes away on Coronado Island. A car with 3 African_American males who fit the description and with two passengers who trying to conceal themselves was found on traveling on Coronado bridge.
YES It was reasonable for an officer to anticipate that a car would be used to leave the island and then stop a car that was (1) traveling away from the crime scene on one of two logical escape routes from Coronado, (2) occupied by three African-American males who fit the general broadcast description, and (3) had two passengers trying to conceal themselves from the officer. (Overten (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1504-1505; compare Bates (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 60--officer could not stop a car in a location adjacent to the suspect's residence two hours after a robbery when the car was not related to either the crime or the named suspect.)
GOOD DETENTION? Officer made a stop for speeding and then became suspicious that the vehicle might be stolen or involved in transporting drugs. After informing the driver that he was not going to issue a citation, the officer asked him to step back to the patrol car, invited him to sit inside (due to the weather), then questioned him for about 20 minutes before securing a consent to search the car, which turned up drugs.
YES The 20-minute detention was not excessive in duration or scope and did not amount to a de facto arrest, no Miranda warnings were necessary, and the consent was voluntary. (Torres-Sanchez (9th Cir. 1996) 83 F.3d 1123, 1127-1130.)
GOOD STOP? A Border Patrol agent lawfully stopped a minivan on an unpaved backroad in southern Arizona based on reasonable suspicion of smuggling activity. The agent had received a radio report that two "intrusion" sensors had been activated on a road used by smugglers to avoid border patrol highway checkpoints. The timing of the radio report coincided with a Border Patrol shift change that reduced the number of roving patrols on the backroads. The agent intercepted the minivan and watched the driver slow dramatically from 50-55 mph to 25-30 mph. The driver appeared stiff with rigid posture, and he would not look at the agent. The knees of the two children in the rear seat were unusually high, as if their feet were propped up on cargo. When the agent began to follow the minivan, which was a type of vehicle commonly used by smugglers, all three children in the van simultaneously raised their hands to wave at the agent in an abnormal pattern for four or five minutes as if instructed to do so. The driver abruptly turned onto the last road that would have allowed him to bypass the checkpoint. The road was suitable for four-wheel-drive vehicles, not a minivan, and it would not have led to a family picnic or sightseeing area. A registration check indicated that the minivan was registered to an address in Douglas, Arizona, in an area notorious for alien and narcotics smuggling. The agent stopped the van and obtained consent to search. He found 128 pounds of marijuana
YES The stop was lawful. The agent was entitled to assess the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area inhabitants. "We think it quite reasonable that a driver's slowing down, stiffening of posture, and failure to acknowledge a sighted law enforcement officer might well be unremarkable in one instance (such as a busy San Francisco highway) while quite unusual in another (such as a remote portion of rural southeastern Arizona)." (Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266; see also Tiong (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 1136, 1138-1141; compare Mendoza(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1044--no reasonable suspicion for stop along drug-trafficking corridor based only on record of Jeep's recent border crossing and driver's slow speed, lane change, and rigid posture.)
GOOD STOP? Two hours after heavy rains, an officer on patrol at midnight noticed a red Ford Fairmont with beads of water on its exterior similar to cars parked in the area but unlike the dry cars traveling on the roads. The officer surmised that the Ford must have been driven only a short distance from the area, where there had been car thefts from the downtown lots, including the Ford dealership. A license check indicated that the vehicle was registered to a private party and had not been reported stolen. When the Ford merged onto the freeway, it kept its speed at 40 miles per hour, well below the posted 55 mph limit. The patrol car was the only other vehicle in sight, and the officer did not hear engine noise consistent with mechanical problems. Concerned that the slow speed might indicate an intoxicated driver, he followed the Ford for one mile before initiating a traffic stop.
YES The stop was supported by sufficient specific articulable facts to investigate whether the men in the car had been involved in criminal activity, including car theft, and were trying to avoid apprehension. The officer's subjective reason for the stop--mainly suspicion of intoxicated driving--was irrelevant. (Letner (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99.)
OK TO DETAIN BOTH? Officers investigating a "grand theft person" report near midnight saw a car drive past a nearby school and blink its headlights several times. Another car, parked in the school parking lot, blinked back and then followed the first car.
YES he officers, who were aware of school burglaries and gang activities in the area, could lawfully detain both vehicles. (Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 598-600.)
GOOD IMPOUND? The narcotics team wanted Torres stopped on a traffic offense, and deputies stopped him for failing to signal a turn. Upon determining that Torres was an unlicensed driver, they impounded his truck. The lead deputy testified that he was "basically using the inventory search as the means to go look for whatever narcotics-related evidence might be in" the truck. That was also his reason for deciding to impound the truck after a traffic stop. He did not establish any "community caretaking function warranting the impoundment."
¸¸¸NO The court suppressed the methamphetamine found in the truck and the three additional pounds of methamphetamine, the cocaine, a rifle, and over $113,000 in cash found in defendant's home. (Torres (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 775.)
