As noted in yesterday's blog post, the California Supreme Court issued opinions in two traffic stop decisions today. Opinions authored by Justice Corrigan were handed down in the companion cases of People v. Hernandez and In re Raymond C. Both cases addressed whether an officer could make a traffic stop to determine if a vehicle
has a temporary driving permit, or to determine if the displayed temporary permit is
valid, if the vehicle lacked a rear or both license plates.
As expected, the decisions distinguished the two cases on their facts, with each decision upholding the decision of the lower court.
As expected, the decisions distinguished the two cases on their facts, with each decision upholding the decision of the lower court.
People v. Hernandez held that an officer who views a vehicle displaying a temporary operating permit on the vehicle's rear window, and observes the vehicle is also missing both plates, cannot stop the vehicle simply because he believes that temporary operating permits are often forged or otherwise invalid. The officer must have reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that the particular permit is invalid. The holding sets aside any misconception that officers might be allowed to detain a vehicle on "mere hunches." The detective in Hernandez had relied on his hunch - or his knowledge that some people (but maybe not Hernandez) driving with temporary operating permits might be violating the law - without having articulable facts to support his suspicion. The Court did not like this, and affirmed the lower court's holding that the stop was unreasonable under Fourth Amendment standards.
To reach its decision, the California Supreme Court sought to distinguish Hernandez from People v. Saunders, 38 Cal.4th 112 (2006). In Saunders the defendant's truck lacked a front license plate, but had a rear plate with expired registration tabs. Saunders' truck also had a temporary operating permit validly displayed on the back window. In that decision, the Court found the stop valid because it had "long been recognized" that lack of a front license plate could create ambiguity, and such ambiguity was legitimate grounds for a stop. Hernandez's truck, on the other hand, lacked both a rear and front plate but displayed a valid temporary operating permit. Finding "no ambiguity regarding his apparently valid temporary permit[,]" the court found no need for the officer to initiate the stop.
In re Raymond C. involved a car driven without plates that had improperly displayed its temporary operating permit in the front window. The officer stopped the car for the apparent license plate violation. Unlike the stop in Hernandez, the Court found this stop to be supported by sufficient particularized suspicion. In his appeal Raymond had argued the stop was unreasonable because the officer would have observed the valid temporary operating permit in the front window if he had driven to the front or side of the car. The Court rejected this argument and held the officer did not need to engage in "potentially dangerous manuevers" before initiating a stop. Relying on United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), the court stated: "The reasonableness of [an] officer's decision to stop a suspect does not turn on the availability of less intrusive investigatory techniques." The Court found the officer's conduct to be reasonable "as well as safer for him, Raymond, and other motorists."
To reach its decision, the California Supreme Court sought to distinguish Hernandez from People v. Saunders, 38 Cal.4th 112 (2006). In Saunders the defendant's truck lacked a front license plate, but had a rear plate with expired registration tabs. Saunders' truck also had a temporary operating permit validly displayed on the back window. In that decision, the Court found the stop valid because it had "long been recognized" that lack of a front license plate could create ambiguity, and such ambiguity was legitimate grounds for a stop. Hernandez's truck, on the other hand, lacked both a rear and front plate but displayed a valid temporary operating permit. Finding "no ambiguity regarding his apparently valid temporary permit[,]" the court found no need for the officer to initiate the stop.
In re Raymond C. involved a car driven without plates that had improperly displayed its temporary operating permit in the front window. The officer stopped the car for the apparent license plate violation. Unlike the stop in Hernandez, the Court found this stop to be supported by sufficient particularized suspicion. In his appeal Raymond had argued the stop was unreasonable because the officer would have observed the valid temporary operating permit in the front window if he had driven to the front or side of the car. The Court rejected this argument and held the officer did not need to engage in "potentially dangerous manuevers" before initiating a stop. Relying on United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), the court stated: "The reasonableness of [an] officer's decision to stop a suspect does not turn on the availability of less intrusive investigatory techniques." The Court found the officer's conduct to be reasonable "as well as safer for him, Raymond, and other motorists."
Leave a comment