Tomorrow, the California Supreme Court will announce its opinion in companion cases In re Raymond C. and People v. Hernandez. The issue in the cases is whether an officer can make a traffic stop to determine if a vehicle has a temporary driving permit or if the displayed temporary permit is valid if the vehicle lacks a rear or both license plates.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth District heard In re Raymond C.
and held that an officer could stop a vehicle with temporary permit and
refused to suppress evidence that the driver, a minor, was
intoxicated. At 1 am on October 24, 2004, an officer stopped Raymond
because he did not see plates or a temporary permit. When Raymond
produced his license, the officer detected alcohol on Raymond's breath
and after conducting field sobriety tests, arrested Raymond for driving
under the influence. The officer justified the stop by stating: (1)
the car lacked a rear plate; (2) the officer did not see a temporary
permit; and (3) this led the officer to suspect a violation of
5200(a). Based on this testimony, the juvenile court refused to
suppress any evidence of intoxication and found that the officer had
reasonable suspicion for the stop. The Court of Appeals agreed.
People v. Hernandez reached a different conclusion. In Hernandez the Court of Appeals for the Third District reversed jury convictions because it was "unwilling to conclude it is always reasonable to stop a car that does not have any license plates but has a temporary operating permit, because that would effectively mean it is always reasonable to suspect that a temporary operating permit is invalid." A jury had convicted Hernandez of felony and misdemeanor resisting of arrest, being under the influence of methamphetamine, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The conviction was based on evidence obtained after the officer had stopped Hernandez for driving with a temporary permit that the officer believed might be invalid. Hernandez moved to suppress the evidence at trial, claiming the officer had "no reasonable grounds to stop his vehicle for having no license plates when the temporary operating permit was lawfully placed, valid on its face, and seen by the police officer." While the officer testified that he had seen the permit, he stated he had pulled over Hernandez's truck because "temporary operating permits are very often forged." The Hernandez court found the stop unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards because the officer could not support his suspicion with articulable facts. The court stated "[a]bsent either additional facts justifying a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or specific experience... to justify a suspicion that the particular operating permit displayed on defendants truck was invalid, we cannot say the stop was reasonable."
It will be interesting to see how the California Supreme Court rules on these two cases. Because the question presented lumps displayed and missing temporary permits together, I'll be curious to see if the court distinguishes the two cases as factually dissimilar, or if they determine that both stops were reasonable given the circumstances. However the court decides one thing remains certain - it was reasonable to take both men off the road before they had the chance to hurt someone.
People v. Hernandez reached a different conclusion. In Hernandez the Court of Appeals for the Third District reversed jury convictions because it was "unwilling to conclude it is always reasonable to stop a car that does not have any license plates but has a temporary operating permit, because that would effectively mean it is always reasonable to suspect that a temporary operating permit is invalid." A jury had convicted Hernandez of felony and misdemeanor resisting of arrest, being under the influence of methamphetamine, and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The conviction was based on evidence obtained after the officer had stopped Hernandez for driving with a temporary permit that the officer believed might be invalid. Hernandez moved to suppress the evidence at trial, claiming the officer had "no reasonable grounds to stop his vehicle for having no license plates when the temporary operating permit was lawfully placed, valid on its face, and seen by the police officer." While the officer testified that he had seen the permit, he stated he had pulled over Hernandez's truck because "temporary operating permits are very often forged." The Hernandez court found the stop unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards because the officer could not support his suspicion with articulable facts. The court stated "[a]bsent either additional facts justifying a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or specific experience... to justify a suspicion that the particular operating permit displayed on defendants truck was invalid, we cannot say the stop was reasonable."
It will be interesting to see how the California Supreme Court rules on these two cases. Because the question presented lumps displayed and missing temporary permits together, I'll be curious to see if the court distinguishes the two cases as factually dissimilar, or if they determine that both stops were reasonable given the circumstances. However the court decides one thing remains certain - it was reasonable to take both men off the road before they had the chance to hurt someone.
Leave a comment