38 Cal.App.5th 617
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Huntington Beach police, investigating a known gang hangout (Looney Tunes Crew), deployed a seven-officer team in unmarked cars with marked vests to approach an alley where complaints of night-time gang and drug activity had occurred. The contact occurred about 1:00 p.m. on a weekday.
- Officers positioned at both ends of the alley; some people ran from the alley toward officers. Sergeant Garcia recognized Antonino Flores from prior contacts and suspected gang involvement; Garcia and Detective Quidort contacted Flores as he walked briskly toward them and had him sit on a step.
- Flores was not patted down, handcuffed, or arrested at the curb. Quidort observed a bulge in Flores’s sock, asked about it, and Flores produced a package of methamphetamine, which Quidort identified as packaged for sale.
- Officers then went to Flores’s shared apartment (Flores agreed to go) and, without Flores’s consent or a warrant, entered and searched; officers found additional meth in Flores’s bedroom. Flores was arrested, later Mirandized at the station, and made inculpatory statements.
- Trial court suppressed evidence from the apartment search but denied suppression of the curbside drug and statements. Court of Appeal reversed, holding the initial detention lacked reasonable suspicion and the subsequent stationhouse statements were fruit of both the unlawful detention and the unlawful residence search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the curbside seizure was supported by reasonable suspicion | Wardlow: unprovoked flight in a high-crime area justified investigatory stop | Detention rested on insufficient, generalized gang-area complaints and non-"headlong" flight; no particularized suspicion of Flores | Detention was unlawful — flight plus high-crime-area alone did not supply reasonable suspicion |
| Whether evidence seized from Flores at the curb (drugs from sock) should be suppressed | Evidence discovered incident to a valid investigatory stop and therefore admissible | Evidence was product of an unlawful seizure and must be suppressed | Drugs from the curb were fruits of unlawful detention and must be suppressed |
| Whether the warrantless entry/search of the apartment was justified | Not argued on appeal (People did not contest trial court suppression of residence evidence) | Entry/search unlawful: no consent and no applicable exception; trial court suppressed apartment evidence | Apartment search was unlawful and suppression of physical evidence at home stands |
| Whether Flores’s Mirandized stationhouse statements are admissible | Statements were sufficiently attenuated from the illegal apartment search/detention; Harris and other principles permit admission | Statements were tainted by the unlawful detention and the subsequent unlawful search; Brown requires suppression of statements obtained by exploiting Fourth Amendment violations | Stationhouse statements were tainted by both unlawful detention and unlawful search and should have been suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight in a narcotics-heavy area may support reasonable suspicion when combined with other facts)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Arizona v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (reasonable suspicion requires particularized and objective basis under totality of circumstances)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (confessions obtained after unlawful arrest/search may be presumptively tainted; Miranda warnings do not necessarily purge the taint)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (statements after a lawful arrest are admissible even if the entry to effectuate arrest violated Payton, where arrest was otherwise supported by probable cause)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (a person is seized when, considering all circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (burden of proof at suppression hearings is preponderance of the evidence)
- People v. Souza, 9 Cal.4th 224 (flight in a high-crime area requires additional corroborating facts — "flight-plus" — to supply reasonable suspicion)