• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Case re: Detentions, consensual and definitions People v. Spice 157 Cal. App. 3d 213

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
"...In Wilson the court found merely approaching the defendant in the airport loading zone did not constitute a detention.The rationale for not treating such encounters as seizures is that the individual is free to disregard the officer's questions and walk away. While this may be the greatest legal fiction of the late 20th century, we are bound to give it due regard..." (annotations in the original excerpted.)

Who says you can't have a sense of humor at work?
 
Last edited:

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
I found that a bit humorous too. But the main thoughts I pulled from it are if you can walk away, you should. Don't let it be a consensual encounter. Or you state clearly that you feel restrained and detained, and you are therefore not waiving any rights and not answering any questions. Or you could simply say "I'm not interested in contracting with you, Do you need physical assistance?" and say nothing else no matter what. But that gets into a whole different game.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Ignoring said:
Here we have an officer who sued for pulling over a car full of guys allegedly without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. In his defense, the officer argued ...
Huh? Darn, I was lookin' forward to some good reading.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Huh? Darn, I was lookin' forward to some good reading.

Well maybe our opinions differ.

Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis there are basically three categories of police “contacts” with individuals: “consensual encounters,” “detentions” and arrests. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325].) Consensual encounters result in no restraint of an individuals liberty whatsoever, hence, an officer is not required to have an objective justification to stop a citizen.

Detentions are seizures...” People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 551, 269 Cal,Rptr. 573 [No. A046244 Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, May 17, 1990]

It is true a temporary detention constitutes a seizure of the person subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 [20 L. Ed. 2D 889, 902-903, 88 S.Ct 1868].)

People v. Bremmer (1973), 30 Cal. App. 3D 1058 [Crim. No21752. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two. March 7, 1973.] The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those consuming no more than a minute (United States v. Brignoni-ponce, supra, 422 U.S. At pp. 879-880 [45 L. Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)

Reasonable suspicion is formed by “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in criminal activity.” Usa v Lopez Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000)

To detain a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion, or “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is "in criminal activity” USA v. Michael R, 90 F3d 340, (9th Cir. 1996)

...any curtailment of a person's liberty by the police must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized is engaged in criminal activity See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S 648, 661 (1979); United States v Brignoni-Ponce, supra ; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra; Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)

“If the individual is stopped or detained because the officer suspects he may be personally involved in some criminal activity, his Fourth Amendment rights are implicated and he is entitled to the safeguards of the rules set forth above.” (Id. At p. 895.)[4] The rules to which the court refers are the following. “[1]n order to justify and investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2)the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Keifer), supra. 3 Cal.3d at p. 872), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course is that 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. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. At p. 22...)” (Id, at p. 893.)

People v. Schoennauer (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3D 398 “While a detention of a citizen by a Police Officer based on [9 Cal. 3D 798] a 'mere hunch' is unlawful, if there is a rational suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is taking place, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime, a detention is permissible.

People v. Renteria, 2 Cal. App.4th 440 [No. B055019. Second Dist, Div, Six Jan 7, 1992] ...a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity is needed to justify a detention
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
What did the sentence, that I quoted from your cited blog, the second sentence IIRC, mean to you? Not what did the scribbler mean, but what did he actually write? Notice the missing word that makes all the difference? I did and stopped DRT reading. YMMV
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
Here is a great video of Officers working on a wrong presumption then calling a LT and getting educated. All captured on video, with an apology while remaining polite and professional.


[video=youtube;n8pkKS66UgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8pkKS66UgU&feature=related[/video]
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I found that a bit humorous too. But the main thoughts I pulled from it are if you can walk away, you should. Don't let it be a consensual encounter. .

It is the only way to determine if you are detained or not and one in which witnesses will actually see and be able to testify to. People cannot hear and won't remember what was said even if they did hear it (our brains are not that good -- including cops) but we are much better in remembering what we see.

So, walk away...people think this is "rude"; so what? No law saying you need to be polite. I think its rude for a cop I don't know to just come up and start talking to me.

I have even ran away. But you find out if you are being detained 'cause they'll tell you to stop moving away if you are being detained because its reasonable to conclude that you are being detained once they tell you to quit moving.

But at some point in the timeline of events detainment turns into kidnapping. What you are able to do, if anything, will depend on your local law.
 
Last edited:
Top