Warrantless Stop

Warrantless Stop And Frisk

A warrantless stop and frisk, also known as a Terry stop, is a brief detention of an individual by law enforcement based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. These stops are significant in both federal and state law, particularly concerning the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, both of which protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Warrantless Sops – Federal Law: Terry v. Ohio

Under federal law, the case that started it all when it comes to governing warrantless stops is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police officers may stop and briefly detain a person without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause but must be based on specific and articulable facts, but not merely a hunch. Officers are also permitted to conduct a limited search (or “frisk”) of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable belief the individual may be armed and dangerous.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the framework for these stops, emphasizing that any search or seizure must be reasonable. Courts weigh the necessity of the stop against the intrusion upon the individual’s privacy. The stop must be temporary, and the investigation should be diligently pursued. If reasonable suspicion dissipates or the stop extends beyond a brief detention, it may turn into an unlawful seizure, triggering potential suppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule.

Warrantless Stops: California Law

In California, state courts have adopted and expanded upon the principles from Terry. California’s legal framework for warrantless stops is similar to federal law, but there are nuances, especially in how courts interpret reasonable suspicion and the scope of the detention. Article I, Section 13 of California State Law mirrors the protections of the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.

A key California case is People v. Souza, 9 Cal. 4th 224 (1994), where the California Supreme Court held that a detention must be based on specific facts that suggest criminal activity is afoot, reinforcing the need for reasonable suspicion. California courts have stressed that reasonable suspicion cannot be based on vague or overly generalized factors such as a person’s presence in a high-crime area alone, without additional, specific observations.

Moreover, under California Penal Code Section 833.5, law enforcement officers are authorized to stop and question individuals when they have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is involved in criminal conduct. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the individual may be armed and dangerous, they can also conduct a limited frisk for weapons, in line with Terry standards.

Interplay of Federal and State Law

A legal professional who understands the complex interplay between federal and state law is Nate Crowley California federal criminal defense attorney. While federal law provides the constitutional baseline for warrantless stops, California courts often apply a more protective approach in favor of individual rights, examining the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the stop was justified. California courts may scrutinize the duration of the stop closely or demand more concrete justifications for reasonable suspicion.

When Does a Stop and Frisk Become illegal?

A stop becomes illegal when it violates the constitutional protections provided by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (and equivalent state laws), which safeguard individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, a stop is unlawful when law enforcement officers detain or seize an individual without sufficient legal justification or violate procedural requirements.

Below are key circumstances in which a stop may be deemed illegal:

Lack of Reasonable Suspicion

For a stop to be legal, officers must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is more than just a vague hunch; it must be based on specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the person may be engaged in wrongdoing.

A stop is illegal if it is based on:

• Mere suspicion or a general hunch without any factual basis.
• Broad, generalized characteristics, such as being in a high-crime area without any specific observations of suspicious conduct.

For example, stopping someone simply because they were walking in a neighborhood known for criminal activity would be insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, absent other specific facts that suggest criminal conduct.

Prolonged Detention

A lawful stop must be temporary and last only as long as necessary to confirm or dispel the officer’s reasonable suspicion. If the stop extends beyond a reasonable timeframe without new grounds emerging to justify continued detention, it can become an illegal prolonged detention. For example:

• Holding someone longer than necessary without further suspicion.
• Extending the stop beyond its original purpose, such as conducting unrelated investigations or questioning that goes beyond the scope of the stop.

For instance, if an officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation and, after resolving the violation, continues to detain the driver without further cause, the extended detention may be considered illegal.

No Probable Cause for Arrest

If during a stop, an officer’s reasonable suspicion develops into probable cause to arrest (i.e., facts strong enough to believe the person has committed a crime), the stop may lawfully escalate into an arrest. However, if the officer arrests someone without probable cause, the stop transitions into an illegal seizure.

For example, a person cannot be arrested simply for refusing to answer an officer’s questions during a Terry stop, as they have the right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.

Unlawful Frisks

During a stop, officers may perform a frisk (pat-down) if they reasonably believe the person may be armed and dangerous. This frisk is a limited search for weapons, not a full-blown search for evidence. An illegal stop occurs when:

• The officer performs a frisk without specific, articulable facts to suggest the person is armed and dangerous.
• The frisk goes beyond searching for weapons and turns into a full search of the person’s body or belongings without probable cause.

For example, if a person is stopped for a minor infraction like jaywalking, and the officer frisks them without any reason to suspect they are carrying a weapon, that frisk may be deemed illegal.

Pretextual Stops

A stop becomes illegal when an officer uses a pretextual reason (such as a minor traffic violation) to justify stopping someone for an unrelated purpose, particularly if it is motivated by discriminatory intent (e.g., based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics).

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Whren v. United States (1996) that as long as the officer has an objectively valid reason to make the stop, the stop may be legal, but if evidence shows discriminatory enforcement, it could be deemed unconstitutional under Equal Protection Clause standards..

Stops Based on Anonymous Tips Without Corroboration

Police cannot legally stop an individual solely based on an unverified, anonymous tip about suspected criminal activity. If an officer acts on such a tip without observing corroborating evidence that raises reasonable suspicion, the stop may be deemed illegal. For instance, if an anonymous caller provides vague information without specific, reliable details, and the police act solely on that tip, the stop may be unlawful.

Were You Stopped and Frisked Illegally?

A stop is illegal if law enforcement officers fail to meet the required legal standards, such as reasonable suspicion, or if the stop becomes excessively prolonged, intrusive, or is conducted for an improper purpose. When a stop is illegal, any evidence obtained during the stop is subject to exclusion under the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.

Were You Stopped By A Cop Without a Warrant? California Criminal Defense Lawyer Nate Crowley can help!

Fill out our contact form on the Home Page https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/

Phone (619) 202-8188 OR email admin@crowleycrowleylaw.com