Error and/or relief
The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to suppress because the police improperly prolonged his detention to conduct a criminal investigation unrelated to the purpose of the initial traffic stop.
First Holding:
Section 1538.5 affords criminal defendants a procedure by which they may seek suppression of illegally seized evidence. Section 1538.5 provides a comprehensive and exclusive procedure for the final determination of search and seizure issues prior to trial. A motion to suppress may be filed independently or at the preliminary hearing.
Authority:
People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 940
Second Holding:
When a suppression motion is made before a magistrate in conjunction with a preliminary hearing, as in this case, the magistrate tries the facts, resolving credibility issues and conflicts in the evidence, weighing the evidence, and drawing appropriate inferences.
If the magistrate denies the motion and holds the defendant to answer, the defendant must, as a prerequisite to appellate review, renew his challenge before the trial court by motion to dismiss under section 995 or in a special hearing.
At that stage, the evidence is generally limited to the transcript of the preliminary hearing, testimony by witnesses who testified at the preliminary hearing (who may be recalled by the prosecution), and evidence that could not reasonably have been presented at the preliminary hearing.
Authority:
People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941
Third Holding:
Where a suppression motion is made before a magistrate in conjunction with a preliminary hearing and no new evidence is presented in superior court, we are concerned solely with the findings of the magistrate. After submission on the transcript at the special hearing, the appellate court, like the superior court, is bound by the magistrate’s factual findings so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.
On review of the superior court ruling by appeal or writ, a two-step standard of review applies. In the first step of our review, we in effect disregard the ruling of the superior court and directly review the determination of the magistrate.
At this stage, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the People since all factual conflicts must be resolved in the manner most favorable to the superior court’s disposition on the suppression motion.
Authority:
People v. Tacardon (2022) 14 Cal.5th 235, 242
People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941
Fourth Holding:
In the second step, accepting as established all implied or express factual findings by the magistrate as are supported by substantial evidence, we then proceed to measure those findings against Fourth Amendment standards articulated by the United States Supreme Court. At this stage, we independently apply the law to the factual findings, determining de novo whether the factual record supports the magistrate’s conclusion that the challenged search met the constitutional standard of reasonableness.
Authority:
People v. Romeo (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 931, 941-942
People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1212 [In California, issues relating to the suppression of evidence derived from governmental searches and seizures are reviewed under federal constitutional standards.]
Fifth Holding:
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a seizure of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. But where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, the seizure is constitutionally reasonable.
Authority:
U.S. Const., 4th Amend.
Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 13
Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 574 U.S. 54, 60
People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669
Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809–810
Sixth Holding:
A seizure for a traffic violation justifies a relatively brief encounter for police investigation of the traffic violation. The tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s mission—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop and attend to related safety concerns. Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate that purpose. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.
The United States Supreme Court has identified tasks that are part of an officer’s mission during a stop for a traffic violation: Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes ordinary inquiries incident to the traffic stop. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. A temporary detention may sometimes also include a criminal history check, which is done by consulting an incar computer terminal or radioing dispatch.
These tasks are included within the officer’s mission during a traffic stop because they ‘serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. An officer may also require a lawfully stopped driver to exit the vehicle for officer safety to complete his traffic stop mission.
Authority:
People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 669-670
Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354, 355-356
People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 363, fn. 4
Seventh Holding:
On-scene investigation into other crimes, however, detours from the traffic stop’s mission. So too do safety precautions taken in order to facilitate such detours. Thus, while an officer may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual.
Authority:
People v. Gyorgy (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, 670
Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355
Eighth Holding:
An investigative stop can grow out of a traffic stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to expand the investigation, even if those suspicions were unrelated to the underlying traffic offense. Therefore, a stop may be prolonged if the prolongation itself is supported by independent reasonable suspicion.
Authority:
People v. Espino (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 746, 756–757
People v. Vera (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1088
Ninth Holding:
Under the totality of circumstances, we conclude the detention was unjustifiably prolonged beyond the time reasonably needed to write the defendant a traffic ticket. Nor was the prolonged detention independently justified by reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity apart from the broken taillight. The traffic stop occurred mid-morning in broad daylight. There was no evidence that it occurred in a high-crime area; indeed, the magistrate was not sure about [the location] and how tough an area that is. And the defendant complied with all officer commands.
On this record, we conclude that although reasonable suspicion justified the initial traffic stop and removal of the defendant from his vehicle for a weapons pat-down, no reasonable suspicion justified prolonging the detention beyond the time necessary to write a traffic ticket so that the officers could further investigate the defendant for drug offenses unrelated to the mission of the traffic stop.
Authority:
Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354 [Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.]
People v. Vera (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1088 [a stop may be prolonged if the prolongation itself is supported by independent reasonable suspicion]
People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1038–1039, 1045–1046 [no reasonable suspicion where the defendant ducked behind a car to hide from police in a high-crime area at night]
People v. Pantoja (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 483, 487, 490–491 [no reasonable suspicion for a pat-down where a nervous but cooperative person with a history of weapons arrests was detained on vehicle infractions in a high crime area while wearing baggy clothing]
Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 357 [Highway and officer safety are interests different in kind from the Government’s endeavor to detect crime in general or drug trafficking in particular.]