• Campuzano, 237 CA4 Supp.14, 188 CR3 587 (15) #CA256406
In Heien v. North Carolina (2014) ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475, the Supreme Court held that an objectively reasonable mistake of law can excuse an otherwise illegal detention. Meaning the statute or ordinance in question has to be so ambiguous that a reasonable police officer could genuinely be confused about its reach.
Well, such an ordinance was at issue in a case decided by the San Diego Appellate Division. The facts:
The defendant was straddling his bicycle and operating it at a “very slow, walking speed” on the sidewalk of a business district, alongside of a female companion who was walking. Two police officers approached and detained him at the corner for “riding on a bicycle in a business district” in violation of San Diego Municipal Code subdivision (a) of section 84.09.
The defendant became “agitated, confrontational and belligerent.” Off. thought he was under the influence, cuffed him, and had him sit on the police car bumper. He was eventually arrested for being on drugs.
Def. moved to suppress, challenging the detention, arguing that he did not violate the ordinance:
San Diego Municipal Code section 84.09 (Bicycle Riding Restricted) provides:
(a) No person shall operate a bicycle upon any sidewalk fronting any commercial business establishment unless official signs are posted authorizing such use.
The officers here interpreted the ordinance expansively, as applying to the whole block. But the court held that the ordinance was limited only to that portion of the sidewalk actually fronting a physical establishment.
In the instant matter, the officers’ interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 84.09, subdivision (a) was a mistake of law. The focus of our inquiry is whether the officer’s mistake of law was objectively reasonable under the facts of the case to support the reasonable cause to stop and detain the defendant. (Heien v. North Carolina (2014) ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 530, 190 L.Ed.2d 475.) In this opinion of first impression on the interpretation of the municipal ordinance, we discuss the expansive and narrow interpretations of the statute. There was no prior guidance for the officers in interpreting the ordinance. Under the facts of this case, we find that it was objectively reasonable for the officer to read the ordinance expansively8, giving rise to a reasonable cause to stop and detain the defendant for a violation of San Diego Municipal Code section 84.09, subdivision (a), an infraction. Further, there was probable cause to arrest him for that infraction. (See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549; People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 607, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 41 P.3d 59; People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 538–539, 12 Cal.Rptr.3d 398.)
Under the totality of the circumstances, there was no prolonged detention because immediately after the stop and detention for the infraction, the officer observed the defendant’s objective symptoms of drug intoxication and had probable cause to arrest the defendant for being under the influence of a controlled substance.