Tag Archives: Motion to suppress

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000858

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We hold that the officers’ un-Mirandized questioning of the defendant was a custodial interrogation and reverse the judgment.

First Holding:

When reviewing issues under Miranda, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently determine whether the interrogation was custodial. Where, as here, an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission are undisputed and subject to our independent review.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1161

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Second Holding:

To give force to the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination, a custodial interrogation must be preceded by Miranda warnings and the suspect’s voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Miranda rights.

Persons in custody thus must be warned that they have the right to remain silent, any statement made may be used as evidence against them, and they have the right to an attorney.

For Miranda purposes, interrogation means express questioning or words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Authority:

Florida v. Powell (2010) 559 U.S. 50, 59

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523, 530–531

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 244

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

Third Holding:

The protections provided by Miranda apply only to custodial interrogations. The term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

Volunteered statements, for instance, that were not made in response to police questioning are not the product of an interrogation and thus not inadmissible under Miranda even when the statements were made while in custody.

Where a defendant seeks to exclude statements made in the absence of a Miranda advisement, they must therefore establish both that the police questioning was an interrogation and that it occurred while the individual was in custody.

Authority:

People v. Zapata (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 529, 538

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 648

Fourth Holding:

A custodial interrogation occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would feel that their freedom has been deprived in any significant way; for example, a formal arrest or a restraint of movement of the degree associated with formal arrest.

When there has been no formal arrest, the question is how a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have understood their situation. All the circumstances of the interrogation are relevant to this inquiry, including the location, length and form of the interrogation, the degree to which the investigation was focused on the defendant, and whether any indicia of arrest were present.

Whether a person is in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.

Authority:

California v. Beheler (1983) 463 U.S. 1121, 1125

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 491

People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 386, 395

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 172

Fifth Holding:

When the court considers whether an individual was in custody during their questioning, it looks at the interplay and combined effect of all the circumstances to determine whether on balance they created a coercive atmosphere such that a reasonable person would have experienced a restraint tantamount to an arrest. The courts have articulated a number of non-exhaustive factors to consider when conducting this analysis.

The relevant factors include: (1) whether contact was initiated by the police or the person interrogated, and if by the police, whether the person voluntarily agreed to an interview; (2) whether the express purpose of the interview was to question the person as a witness or a suspect; (3) location of the interview; (4) whether police informed the person they were under arrest or in custody; (5) whether they informed the person they were free to terminate the interview and leave at any time; (6) whether there were restrictions on the person’s freedom of movement during the interview; (7) length of the interrogation; (8) how many police officers participated; (9) whether they dominated and controlled the course of the interrogation; (10) whether they manifested a belief that the person was culpable and they had evidence to prove it; (11) whether the police were aggressive, confrontational, and/or accusatory; (12) whether the police used interrogation techniques to pressure the suspect; and 13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. Aguilera (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1162

Sixth Holding:

The circumstances are less likely to suggest to an individual that they are unable to leave or end the questioning when they voluntarily subject themselves to such an examination.

Authority:

People v. Potter (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 541 [holding that the defendant was not in custody when he voluntarily came to the police station for an interview]

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 173 [defendant’s agreement to be voluntarily interviewed in unmarked police car weighed against a custodial finding]

Seventh Holding:

A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a suspect for investigation and limits questioning to the purpose of identification or obtaining sufficient information to confirm or dispel the officer’s suspicions that a crime has occurred.

Authority:

People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 180

People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 679–680

Eighth Holding:

The mere fact that an individual is a suspect is not enough to foster a custodial environment; the officers’ suspicion must also be communicated to that person for it to factor into the custody determination.

The awareness of the person being questioned by an officer that the police have ample cause to arrest him, may well lead him to conclude, as a reasonable person, that he is not free to leave, and that he has been significantly deprived of his freedom.

Authority:

People v. Vasquez (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1163—1164

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 176 [holding that officers’ expressed belief that the defendant was culpable and they had evidence to prove it weighed in favor of custody determination]

Ninth Holding:

An interview that takes place in public within view of any passersby reduces the ability of an unscrupulous officer to use illegitimate means to elicit incriminating responses and should lessen a suspect’s fear of abuse should they not cooperate.

Authority:

Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 438

Tenth Holding:

The longer the period of questioning, the more likely it will be found to be coercive and custodial, although even one question may be enough in the proper circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Herdan (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 300, 307, fn. 12

Eleventh Holding:

If the court finds that the statement was admitted in violation of Miranda, the court must determine whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not impact the jury’s guilty verdict, such that the jury would not have reached a different result had the trial court excluded the challenged statements.  

The court assesses whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21–22

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 495

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Twelfth Holding:

A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. On the record in this case, we cannot find that the admission of the defendant’s statements was harmless error.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296.

People v. Torres (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 162, 181 [finding prejudice where there were no witnesses or physical evidence and defendant’s non-Mirandized statements was primary evidence]

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000781

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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.]

Evidence, Fifth Amendment, Jury trial, Standard of review

Case 000780

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the detectives subjected defendant to a custodial interrogation. Their failure to advise him of his Miranda rights therefore required the suppression of his confession.

First Holding:

Under Miranda, suspects questioned by law enforcement after being taken into custody must first be informed that they have the right to remain silent, that any statements they make may be used against them, and that they have a right to the presence of an attorney. If police interrogate a suspect in custody without providing these advisements, the suspect’s responses cannot be admitted to establish their guilt.

Authority:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16

Second Holding:

The duty to advise suspects of their Miranda rights applies only if they are in custody. Custody is a term of art that specifies circumstances that are thought generally to present a serious danger of coercion. In deciding if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes, the question is whether a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. To answer this question, the court must examine all the circumstances surrounding the interrogation

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16

Third Holding:

Relevant considerations include (1) who initiated the contact; (2) whether the person agreed to the interview; (3) whether the person was questioned as a witness or suspect; (4) the interview’s location; (5) whether police said the person was under arrest or in custody (6) conversely, whether they said the person was free to leave at any time; (7) whether the person’s movement was restrained; (7) the length of questioning; (8) the number of officers; (9) the degree of police control over the interrogation; (10) whether officers conveyed a belief in the person’s guilt and suggested they had incriminating evidence; (11) whether the tone was aggressive or accusatory; (12) whether police used interrogation tactics designed to pressure the person; and (13) whether the person was arrested at the end of the interrogation.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

Fourth Holding:

The prosecution has the burden of proving a defendant was not in custody. We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence but independently decide if the interrogation was custodial.

(GARY Note: the court then described the events in detail that led the court to declare “Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation long before he received Miranda advisements.” Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not useful to recite the circumstances, because you cannot cite this case as an example of a finding that Miranda rights should have been given earlier. If an attorney wants to read the full opinion, I can provide it on request.)

Authority:

In re Anthony L. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 438, 445

Fifth Holding:

A confession held inadmissible by reason of having been obtained in violation of the prophylactic Miranda requirements is subject to a harmless-error standard of review specified in Chapman. Under that standard, we ask whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. To say that an error did not contribute to the verdict is to find that error unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question.

Authority:

People v. NavaAdame (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1, 21-22

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24

Sixth Holding:

The erroneous admission of defendant’s confession cannot be regarded as unimportant. A confession is like no other evidence. Indeed, the defendant’s own confession is probably the most probative and damaging evidence that can be admitted against him. Confessions often operate as a kind of evidentiary bombshell which shatters the defense and are thus much more likely to be prejudicial.

Authority:

Arizona v. Fulminante (1991) 499 U.S. 279, 296

People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 86

Seventh Holding:

We decline to consider defendant’s testimony at trial in assessing harmlessness. When an illegally obtained confession is erroneously admitted, the defendant’s testimony will not render the error harmless unless it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not take the stand in an attempt to mitigate the explosive impact of a confession which had left his case in ruin.

Authority:

People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 151

Fourth Amendment

Case 000738

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence. A security guard noticed that car in the parking lot had shooting targets and loose ammunition–both legal–in the car, and the car’s trunk was open. No one was inside or near the car, which was locked. The guard called the police. The officer saw what appeared to be a tactical vest in the partly opened trunk. The officer then fully opened the trunk and could then see the butt of a pistol in the vest.

Because the officer could not see the gun and magazines until after he had seized the tactical vest, he had no probable cause to open the trunk further to conduct the search the trunk or of the vest he removed from the trunk.

First Holding:

In reviewing an order on a suppression motion, we rely on the trial court’s express and implied factual findings, provided they are supported by substantial evidence, to independently determine whether the search was constitutional.

Thus, while we ultimately exercise our independent judgment to determine the constitutional propriety of a search or seizure, we do so within the context of historical facts determined by the trial court construed in the light most favorable to the court’s order. It is the trial court’s role to evaluate witness credibility, resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw factual inferences.

Authority:

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 860-861

Second Holding:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of private property. A defendant challenging the lawfulness of a warrantless search must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched or the things seized. A successful showing requires the government to respond by identifying an applicable exception to the warrant requirement.

If the government fails to do so, the court must apply an exclusionary rule that forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial and must also preclude the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of the illegal search.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1469

People v. Nishi (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 954, 960

People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 115

People v. Golden (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 905, 911

Third Holding:

A defendant’s expectation of privacy must be both subjective and objectively reasonable. To meet this second prong of the test, the expectation must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.

Authority:

People v. Nishi (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 954, 960

Byrd v. United States (2018) 584 U.S. 395, 405

Fourth Holding:

The court’s determination that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trunk of his car is supported by substantial evidence. At the time of the search, the doors to his car were locked and the key was in his pocket. These facts are highly relevant to our inquiry because one of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others, and one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.

Accordingly, one who owns and possesses a car, like one who owns and possesses a house, almost always has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The facts indicate that the defendant took precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy.

Authority:

Byrd v. United States (2018) 584 U.S. 395, 405

Fifth Holding:

It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for an officer to make a warrantless seizure of an incriminating object in plain view if (1) the officer was lawfully in a place where the object could be viewed; (2) the officer had a lawful right of access to the seized item; and (3) the item’s evidentiary value was immediately apparent. This third element requires that there be probable cause to believe that the item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband before it was seized.

Authority:

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 489

People v. Stokes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 715, 719

Sixth Holding:

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we defer to a trial court’s credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Generally, this is evidence that, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Under this standard, we may reject testimony accepted as credible by the trial court only if it is wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds or unbelievable per se such that no reasonable person could believe the testimony Credibility findings that fail to survive this scrutiny are rare indeed. There must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or the statements falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.

This case presents one of these rare occurrences. (The opinion then details the problems it perceived with trial courts conclusions drawn from the officer’s testimony.)

Authority:

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 860-861

People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal.3d 141, 149

In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1149

DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 236, 261

Seventh Holding:

Under the plain view doctrine, probable cause that an item of interest to law enforcement is incriminating must exist before the object is seized. The trial court’s logic, by contrast, suggests that this standard can be met by a mere hunch that happens to pan out. That is not how the Fourth Amendment works.

Authority:

People v. Stokes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 715, 719

People v. Pitts (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 881, 889 [A hunch may provide the basis for solid police work. A hunch, however, is not a substitute for the necessary specific, articulable facts required to justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion]

Eighth Holding:

A law enforcement officer often performs functions that are totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. As these so-called community caretaking functions relate to vehicles, they include impounding them if they pose threats to public safety—for example, because they are disabled, parked illegally, or blocking traffic or a sidewalk—or stand at risk of theft or vandalism.

When vehicles are impounded, that is, seized, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles’ contents. These inventory searches are “a well-defined exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Accordingly, under what is sometimes referred to as the vehicle community caretaking exception, the government may introduce evidence obtained from an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle.

But controlling precedent recognizes the vehicle community caretaking exception applies only in the context of impound procedures, which undisputedly were not used here. No published California case has applied the concept of community caretaking outside the context of a vehicle inventory.

Even assuming that the community caretaking function might in some circumstances permit a warrantless search for suspected firearms in the unsecured trunk of an unoccupied car in a public place, the search here was unreasonable because sheriff’s deputies made no attempt to first locate the driver of the vehicle before opening the trunk

Authority:

Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) 413 U.S. 433, 441

People v. Vodak (1980) 105 Cal.App.3rd 1014

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 867

People v. Ovieda (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1034, 1048, 1053

Fourth Amendment

Case 000721

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A police officer’s observation of a driver’s red, glossy eyes and strong odor of cologne, without more, did not provide a reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation after instigating a traffic stop. We affirm the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.

(Gary note: This is a long summary. In short, the defendant showed no signs of driving under the influence, and the only reason the officer conducted a search was he perceived the defendant’s eyes as red and glossy and he smelled cologne. I have chosen to set forth the main principles relied on by the Court of Appeal in affirming the trial court’s grant of the suppression motion, which had been overturned by the appellate division of the superior court before the Court of Appeal transferred the matter to itself on the defendant’s petition.)

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As such, a defendant may move to suppress evidence on the grounds that the search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable. The burden to show proper justification for a warrantless search and seizure] rests on the prosecution.

Authority:

U.S. Const. 4th Amend.

PEN 1538.5(a)(1)(A)

People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788, 795

Second Holding:

A seizure occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, restricts a person’s liberty. A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity.

Authority:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 19, fn. 16

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231

Third Holding:

A reasonable suspicion to detain requires a lesser showing than probable cause to arrest. Not only can reasonable suspicion be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

Authority:

People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230-231,

Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330

Fourth Holding:

Ordinary traffic stops are treated as investigatory detentions for which the officer must be able to articulate specific facts justifying the suspicion that a crime is being committed. Thus, a seizure for a traffic violation justifies a police investigation of that 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.

Authority:

People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1053–1054

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354

Fifth Holding:

An officer’s mission during a traffic stop includes addressing the traffic violation; checking the driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance; and determining whether the driver has outstanding warrants—all of which serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

Sixth Holding:

Under certain circumstances, an officer conducting a traffic stop may also investigate a suspected crime unrelated to the infraction that initially prompted the stop. However, the officer may not do so in a way that prolongs the stop, absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to justify detaining an individual. An articulable and reasonable suspicion that a person is driving while impaired is required to extend a routine traffic stop to involve a more intrusive DUI investigation requiring the driver to exit his or her vehicle to perform field sobriety tests [FSTs].

Authority:

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 355

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940-941 [the Fourth Amendment requires officers to diligently pursue a means of investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly]

People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742 [an officer’s subjective beliefs are generally irrelevant to the lawfulness of a search and seizure]

Seventh Holding:

Here, the trial court found that the officer’s prolonging the traffic stop in order to investigate defendant for a DUI by having him exit the vehicle to undergo field sobriety tests was not independently supported by individualized, reasonable suspicion. We agree with this conclusion.

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. On appeal, we draw all inferences from the record in favor of the trial court’s ruling and defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence.

We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Silveria and Travis (2020) 10 Cal.5th 195, 232

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362

People v. Linn (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 46, 56 [when a misdemeanor appeal is certified for transfer to the appellate court, the Court of Appeal’s review is as if the parties directly appealed from the trial court ruling on defendant’s suppression motion]

Eighth Holding:

The officer testified that he suspected defendant may have been intoxicated and, therefore, decided to conduct a DUI investigation based on two factors: defendant had red, glossy eyes and smelled strongly of cologne. These factors are not enough to provide reasonable suspicion of a DUI crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045 [mere presence in a known narcotics area is not enough to warrant suspicion]

People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 940 [finding no substantial evidence to support the officer’s claim that the defendant appeared intoxicated when the defendant did not display any conduct demonstrating insobriety, such as slurred or irregular speech, an inability to walk or stand normally, confusion, or any other mental incapacity, and he was not acting any more nervously than a typical person in a traffic stop]

Ninth Holding:

A mere deviation from perceived social convention does not automatically signal criminal behavior. The particular conduct relied upon must, when considered in the totality of circumstances, support a reasonable suspicion that the person to be detained is, or is about to be, engaged in activity ‘relating to crime.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1045

In re L.G. (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 818, 822 [Nervousness, an unrelated arrest, and a gang companion did not create reasonable suspicion L.G. was at that moment committing a crime]

Tenth Holding:

While officers may draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences, they cannot rely on mere hunches.

Authority:

People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299

Fourth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000086

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence, contending the court erred when it found police officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him. Because we have concluded there was insufficient evidence that defendant’s conduct, when considered in the totality of circumstances, supported a reasonable suspicion that he was, or was about to be, engaged in activity relating to crime, we agree with defendant that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him. Accordingly, the subsequent recovery of the handgun was the product of an illegal detention and arrest and evidence related to the recovery was subject to exclusion.

[GARY NOTE: The facts relied on by the court are too extensive to adequately summarize. Essentially, the officer saw a group of people milling about. When some appeared to notice him, they ran off, though the defendant and one other did not run off. The officer described various body movements and claimed to have seen something that was not borne out by the appellate court’s review of the body cam video.]

First Holding:

The Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative stop when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. [Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause. Because it is a less demanding standard, reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause. The standard depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Courts cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty where none exists. Rather, they must permit officers to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.

Authority:

Kansas v. Glover (2020) 589 U.S. 376, 380–381

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1041

Second Holding:

The officer’s subjective suspicion must be objectively reasonable, and an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith.

Authority:

People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083

Third Holding:

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In doing so we do not consider each fact in isolation. Instead, we must consider the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.

Authority:

People v. Flores (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1032, 1043

Fifth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000071

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to suppress his interrogation statements because he invoked his right to counsel under Miranda. His statements were involuntary and coerced. We conclude the admission of the interrogation was prejudicial. We therefore reverse his convictions and remand for retrial.

First Holding:

A custodial interrogation can come in various forms and does not require questions. The term interrogation under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent.

Authority:

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436

Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, 301

Second Holding:

Miranda’s safeguards do not apply when police ask a suspect routine booking questions to secure the biographical data necessary to complete booking or pretrial services. But there is an exception to that exception: courts have recognized the potential for abuse by law enforcement officers who might, under the guise of seeking objective or neutral information, deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect.

Authority:

Pennsylvania v. Muniz (1990) 496 U.S. 582, 601

United States v. Zapien (9th Cir. 2017) 861 F.3d 971, 975

E

Third Holding:

When a police officer has reason to know that a suspect’s answer may incriminate him even routine questioning may amount to interrogation.

Authority:

United States v. Williams (9th Cir. 2016) 842 F.3d 1143, 1147

Fourth Holding:

Once a suspect states he wishes to consult with an attorney, the interrogation must stop until an attorney is present or the suspect reinitiates contact. This is a bright-line rule: it requires all questioning cease after a suspect requests counsel. This is a prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights. In the absence of such a bright-line prohibition, the authorities through badgering or overreaching—explicit or subtle, deliberate or unintentional—might otherwise wear down the accused and persuade him to incriminate himself notwithstanding his earlier request for counsel’s assistance. Once a suspect invokes the right to counsel, everything changes; that is, the police can no longer engage in efforts to convince the suspect to speak to them.

Authority:

Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477, 484–485

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 580

Michigan v. Harvey (1990) 494 U.S. 344, 350

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1022

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 932

Fifth Holding:

The error requires reversal unless it is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Elizalde (2015) 61 Cal.4th 523

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Sixth Holding:

We review Miranda claims under federal constitutional standards. We accept the trial court’s determination of disputed facts if supported by substantial evidence, but we independently decide whether the challenged statements were obtained in violation of Miranda. When an interview is recorded, the facts surrounding the admission or confession are undisputed and we may apply independent review.

Authority:

People v. Johnson (2022) 12 Cal.5th 544, 578

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013, 1023

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116, 158