The California Supreme Court issued a 7–0 ruling on policing in the state.
The California Supreme Court issued a 7–0 ruling that police or sheriff’s deputies cannot detain people on the street just because they are trying to avoid contact with them.
Last week, the state’s high court wrote that the fact that a person appears to be concealing him- or herself or acting nervously cannot be the only reason for an officer to detain the person. Those actions can be “relevant context,” but there still needs to be “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” Justice Carol Corrigan wrote in the court’s unanimous ruling.
Law enforcement officials, she added in the opinion, “may consider what they see in plain view,” and they can “approach people in public, engage them in consensual conversation, and take note of their appearance and behavior.“ However, there needs to be probable cause because the individual is ”constitutionally protected and empowered to go on his or her way,” Justice Corrigan wrote.
The case involved Marlon Flores, who was arrested by Los Angeles Police Department officers in 2019 when he was standing on a street that was described as a gang area, according to court papers. Mr. Flores saw the officers driving before he walked around a vehicle and hid behind it.
“One fair interpretation of the facts is that Flores initially tried to avoid being seen by the officers. Thereafter, and somewhat inconsistently, he stood and was in view for several seconds. He then failed to acknowledge the officers’ approach, and sought to avoid interacting with them,” Justice Corrigan added in the opinion.
However, she wrote: “Flores’s presence in a high crime area at night ... did not provide a particularized and objective basis for suspecting that Flores was doing something illegal. It is settled that a person may decline to engage in a consensual encounter with police.”
Related Stories
“I agree with today’s opinion that the detention of defendant Marlon Flores was unlawful,“ Justice Kelli Evans wrote in a concurring opinion. ”In bending over with his hands by his shoe and refraining from acknowledging the officers’ presence, Flores indicated he was either going about his business or attempting to avoid engaging with the police, both of which were within his rights to do.”
Mr. Flores was ultimately convicted of carrying a loaded and unregistered handgun in violation of state law, court papers show. The California Court of Appeal upheld his conviction in 2021.
The lower court noted that Mr. Flores ducked down behind a car and later “continually moved his hands, keeping them out of sight of the police” as officers approached him. According to the ruling, an officer testified that Mr. Flores “acted ’suspicious(ly)‘ by ’attempting to conceal himself from the police‘ and then ’pretend(ing) to tie his shoe.'”
The lower court found that the officer would have “valid suspicions” if the individual picked an unlikely moment for the task, in the dark, just after seeing police, and just after ducking once already, and if the person took an unusually long time at it. The trial court found that Mr. Flores was in a crouching position for a suspiciously long time, warranting police officers’ decision to apprehend him.
It’s not clear whether the California Supreme Court ruling will be appealed. In the landmark 1968 ruling in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that police can use the “stop and frisk” procedure under the U.S. Constitution.
That established the concept of a “Terry stop,” which allows police to briefly detain a person based on a reasonable suspicion they are engaging in criminal activity.
The California Appeals Court ruling noted that prosecutors were not able to determine whether Mr. Flores was engaging in illegal drug activity but that the trial court was “right that together the facts justified this Terry stop.”
“In combination with the other factors, a reasonable officer had a reasonable basis for investigating further to resolve this ambiguity, because nervous and evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining whether suspicion is reasonable,” the court found.
After the state Supreme Court’s ruling last week, multiple police groups and unions released statements saying that it will lead to more crime.
The Epoch Times contacted the Los Angeles Police Protective League, a Los Angeles Police Department union, for comment but received none by press time.