• IN RE L.G., 108 CA5 818, 329 CR3 595 (25) #B331298:
Officers Quezada and Millan were patrolling Harbor City Crips gang territory after dark. Millan saw three young men standing on a sidewalk and recognized one as a Harbor City Crips member. Millan had arrested an unrelated person for a gun crime in this area about a month earlier. The Officers drove up engaged the three in conversation: where did they live, what were they doing there, and so forth. Two responded but L.G., a 15 year old, did not, but did look “sideways and at the ground.”
Suspecting L.G. might be carrying drugs or a weapon, the Officers got out, turned on their body cams, and said, “Step out to the street! Get your hands up!” [Exclamation points were in the transcript]. L.G. took off running, clutching his waistband “as if he were holding a gun.”
Millan and Quezada called for backup, which arrived and caught L.G. He indeed had a gun. L.G. moved to suppress the evidence. Denied.
The Court of Appeal, per Wiley, J., reversed.
Consensual encounters require no justification. Detentions—also called Terry stops or stop-and-frisks—do. If an officer’s show of authority restrains someone’s liberty in some way, then the officer has seized that person and must justify this detention. Police seize someone if, in view of the situation, reasonable people would not believe they are free to leave. We consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether police actions turn an encounter into a detention.
***
This search was improper. (See Flores, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 1041–1051.) There was too little evidence of criminal activity. Officers saw L.G. with a known gang member in gang territory where there had been an unrelated arrest in the past. Based on that and L.G.’s nervous demeanor, the officers decided to go beyond a consensual encounter.
Nervousness was not enough. Police properly can note this factor. (Flores, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 1044.) But innocent people can get nervous and go silent when police appear out of the dark, aim a flashlight, and start asking questions. The questions were pointed: Quezada agreed he was not asking them “what’s a good place to eat” around here? Millan said, in his experience, “many individuals don’t want to talk to police.”
Being nervous and deliberately avoiding police interaction did not reasonably suggest criminal activity was afoot.
The fact of an unrelated arrest a month before is pertinent but insufficient. (Flores, supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 1043, 1049.)
***
Once the police said, “Step out to the street! Get your hands up!” and advanced in a coordinated and simultaneous approach, reasonable people in L.G.’s situation would not believe they were free to leave. The objective observer would conclude officers were getting out of the car for a reason beyond casual conversation. If conversation was their goal, they already had achieved it: Quezada was conversing freely with the young men. L.G. was not talking, as was his right.
When police gave the hands-up instruction, instantly the situation became grave. Now a reasonable person would, at all costs, avoid furtive movements that could trigger a deadly response from law enforcement.
The officers lacked a particularized and objective basis for believing L.G. was breaking the law:
Nervousness, an unrelated arrest, and a gang companion did not create reasonable suspicion L.G. was at that moment committing a crime.
Artificial Intelligence
Across our favored land, judges are dealing with a new and ubiquitous problem—lawyers who fail to properly fact-check the output of Artificial Intelligence when using it for legal research and documents. Lawyers are submitting briefs to judges that include completely fictitious case citations that have been “hallucinated” by AI tools like ChatGPT.
Recently, a lawyer representing a company in a case against a state agency filed a brief that cited a case the judge was unable to locate. Although lawyer admitted the error, withdrew the citation, and apologized to the court, a further review of his filings revealed that he had included fictitious cases in two other briefs as well. He explained that he was unaware that AI could generate fictitious cases and citations. The court sanctioned him to the tune of $15,000.
I decided to test ChatGPT by asking if “nervousness” was enough for a detention:
- **Nervousness Alone is Insufficient:**
– Courts have repeatedly held that mere nervousness does not establish reasonable suspicion.
– People v. Valenzuela (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 817: The court ruled that nervousness, without more, does not justify a detention.
- **Nervousness Plus Additional Factors Can Justify a Stop:**
– Courts consider the **totality of circumstances** in determining reasonable suspicion.
– Relevant factors may include:
– Presence in a high-crime area
– Evasive behavior (e.g., attempting to flee)
– Association with known criminals
– Hands in pockets or reaching into a concealed area
– Non-compliance with police commands
– *Illinois v. Wardlow* (2000) 528 U.S. 119: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a stop when the suspect fled unprovoked in a high-crime area, suggesting more than mere nervousness.
- **Prolonged Nervousness May Be More Significant:**
– *People v. Souza* (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224: The California Supreme Court held that nervousness combined with flight in a high-crime area created reasonable suspicion.
– However, simple avoidance of eye contact or appearing anxious is not enough.
Well, I have to say, not bad. Three decision, all correctly cited and summarized. (I did review each case myself. Make sure you do the same.)
The fastest way to research these issues is, of course, Bell’s Compendium. You get all the relevant cases (including abundant cases AI will miss) in short, squib format, and you can trust that the citations have been checked. That saves you time right there!