People v. Brown
61 Cal. 4th 968
Cal.2015Background
- At ~10:37 p.m., a 911 caller reported a fight in an alley behind his home, heard screaming, and heard someone say “the gun was loaded”; the caller confirmed his address and stayed on the line.
- Deputy Geasland arrived within three minutes, drove the alley, encountered a car leaving the scene (driven by Brown), called out, received no response, and followed the car.
- Geasland located Brown’s legally parked car a few houses from the fight, pulled behind it, activated his patrol car’s emergency lights, and then approached on foot.
- Brown remained in the driver’s seat; when the deputy neared he noticed signs of intoxication (mumbling, watery/bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol), and Brown admitted drinking and involvement in the fight.
- Brown moved to suppress evidence as fruits of an unlawful detention; trial court denied the motion, Brown pleaded guilty to DUI-related charges, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal: held Brown was detained when the deputy activated emergency lights and that brief detention was supported by reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether activating emergency lights behind a legally parked car effected a Fourth Amendment seizure | Lights did not detain Brown until deputy approached on foot and observed intoxication | Activating emergency lights in close proximity constituted a show of authority and detained Brown | Activating overhead emergency lights behind Brown’s parked car, under the circumstances, detained him (reasonable person would not feel free to leave) |
| Whether Brown submitted to the show of authority | No seizure occurred before deputy’s on-foot observations | Brown passively submitted by remaining in his car after lights were activated | Brown submitted by passive acquiescence; Brendlin/Mendenhall test applies and seizure occurred upon lights activation |
| Whether detention was supported by reasonable suspicion | Deputy lacked sufficient particularized suspicion because no suspect description; call was anonymous enough to be unreliable | 911 caller’s eyewitness, contemporaneous report, address confirmation and dispatcher corroboration made tip reliable | Totality of circumstances (reliable 911 tip of ongoing violent fight with possible gun, quick response, Brown’s presence and conduct) gave reasonable suspicion to detain briefly |
| Whether evidence seized after detention must be suppressed | If seizure occurred earlier without reasonable suspicion, evidence should be suppressed | Even if detention occurred at lights activation, it was supported by reasonable suspicion so evidence admissible | Evidence admissible: brief, minimally intrusive detention was reasonable and yielded observations justifying DUI investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters allowed; seizure test asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline requests)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passive acquiescence to police authority: seizure occurs if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
- Hodari D. v. United States, 499 U.S. 621 (seizure requires force or submission; flight without submission is not a seizure)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (brief investigatory stops justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (reasonable-person test for seizure)
- Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (911 caller’s eyewitness, contemporaneous report, and traceability confer reliability for reasonable suspicion)
- Hensley v. Wash., 469 U.S. 221 (officers may act on information received through official channels; prior reports may justify stops)