- HOLIMAN, 76 CA5 825, 291 CR3 840 (22) #A160142:
A rookie police officer was driving in her patrol car in downtown Vallejo, California. She had been a member of the police force for only one month and was on patrol accompanied by a field training officer for mandatory on-the-job training.
She saw Holiman’s car when her patrol car came to a stop at another intersection. Holiman’s car came to a stop at a stop sign on the cross-street to her right, and then make a left-hand turn in front of her patrol car and onto the street she was stopped on, in the opposite direction her patrol car was facing.
At the suppression hearing, Off. testified that as Holiman made the left turn, she saw him “look at me and then quickly look away as if to want to hide his face” which she “found . . . curious,” and “so I turned around and followed him.”
She followed him for about two short city blocks until the two cars reached another intersection with a three-way stop sign. Holiman came to a full stop, and then he proceeded ahead and made the right turn. There, she testified, he turned on his turn blinker “just prior” to making the right-hand turn.
She continued following Holiman’s car for about four more minutes then activated her emergency lights. Holiman pulled over and she approached.
Holiman disclosed he was on parole and, after Off. confirmed he was subject to search terms, she searched his person and found a pill bottle and some cash, and then placed him in handcuffs in the backseat of her patrol car. In the ensuing search of his car she found a loaded semiautomatic handgun, a baggie containing methamphetamine and a jar containing marijuana. On his phone were texts indicating his involvement with possible drug sales. He was then arrested.
Holiman moved to suppress. The trial court denied the motion, finding the Off. had a reasonable suspicion that Holiman had violated the Vehicle Code and thus the stop was lawful.
The Court of Appeal, per Stewart, J., reversed. The issue was whether Holiman violated Vehicle Code Section 22108, which provides: “Any signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given continuously during the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.”
Holiman didn’t do that. But wait! There is also Section 22107: “No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.” (Italics added.)
But the only vehicle around was the police car, which clearly was not affected. So the Off. made a mistake about the law. Now the question becomes was that a reasonable mistake? No.
The People respond there was no Fourth Amendment violation because Holiman did violate the law, and that even if he did not, Officer Bellamy had an objectively reasonable basis to think the law required Holiman to signal his right-hand turn sooner than he did and thus at worst made a reasonable mistake of law in interpreting the relevant statutes. In reply, Holiman concedes that a reasonable mistake of law can justify a warrantless search but contends it was not objectively reasonable for Officer Bellamy to think his right-hand turn violated the law. We agree with Holiman.
Totality of Circumstances Not Enough to Establish Reasonable Suspicion for Patdown Search
- PANTOJA, 77 CA5 483, ___ CR3 ___ (22) #A162591
In a “high crime area,” a Vacaville police officer, Hill, stopped a silver Dodge for non-working brake and license plate lights. Hill recognized Def. and knew he “had a history of violence and firearm possession, and he was at the time an investigative lead in a homicide.” Hill saw no signs defendant was intoxicated. Hill asked if there was “weed” in the car, and defendant said he did not smoke weed. Hill asked defendant if he could take a look in the vehicle for contraband, and defendant said no.
Hill ordered defendant out. Defendant was wearing “baggy” clothes and a hoodie. Hill lifted the front of the hoodie and found a revolver.
Defendant was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. He moved to suppress. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the case. The People appealed.
The Court of Appeal, per Miller, J., affirmed.
To justify a pat search for weapons an officer must have a “reasonable suspicion” the detainee may be armed and dangerous. Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (68). The “totality of the circumstances” in this case did not meet that standard.
When asked whether he believed defendant was armed or dangerous, Hill cited (1) the fact defendant was wearing baggy clothing that “naturally has bulges in it” and (2) “defendant’s history of weapons” as reasons to pat him down. Asked again, “did you believe he was presently armed and dangerous?” Hill responded, “There’s a good possibility or chance, yes.” The trial court found Hill’s second response indicated his belief was “all speculative, and he didn’t have any specific or articulable facts to believe that this individual was presently armed or dangerous.”
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and deferring to the court’s implied factual and credibility findings, we conclude the court properly granted defendant’s motion to suppress.
Brief Stop at Gang Hangout Enough PC for Search Warrant
- Delgado, ___ CA5 ___, ___ CR3 ___ (22) #B309947:
Def. was member of Highland Park gang. Offs watched his house as “well-documented hangout” of the gang. The observed a black Lexus SUV drive up. Two passengers went in the house. They came out 3 – 5 minutes later, got in the SUV. Def. came out to the SUV and leaned in the passenger-side front window. Offs concluded Def. was “possibly delivering narcotics and/or firearms and then immediately returned to his residence as the black Lexus drove away.”
Offs stopped the Lexus. Parole search found cash, guns, drugs. Offs then applied for a search warrant for Def’s house. The seized a phone with videos of Def. orchestrating nine beatings to initiate new members into the Highland Park gang.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress the video evidence of Def’s role in these beatings.
The Court of Appeal, 2-1, affirmed. The majority, per Wiley, J., holds that the affidavit presented a reasonable support to believe this was a transfer of illegal contraband from the hangout to the SUV. “The purpose of the visit probably was not social; people rarely drive in Los Angeles traffic for a social visit of three to five minutes while the driver waits in the car.”
Stratton, J., dissented. Was possession of drugs and a gun in the SUV, after a 3-5 minute visit to a hangout, enough for probable cause to believe the evidence came from the house? “I conclude the answer is ‘no.’ ”