60 Cal.App.5th 978
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Officers on routine patrol entered a cul-de-sac at ~10:00 p.m. known for narcotics sales, gang activity, and recent arrests.
- Officers saw Marlon Flores standing near a parked car; when they approached he ducked behind the car, repeatedly crouched, and kept his hands out of view while "toying" near his feet.
- A body-worn camera corroborated the sequence: Flores remained crouched and silent as officers walked up with a bright flashlight and noisy radio; he only stood when ordered and was handcuffed.
- An officer’s pat of an electronic car key activated the parked car’s lights; an officer then saw a methamphetamine bong in the vehicle; Flores consented to retrieve his wallet, revealing suspected meth; a subsequent search of the car produced a loaded, unregistered firearm.
- Flores moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful detention; the trial court denied suppression, Flores pleaded no contest to carrying a loaded unregistered firearm, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Flores’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop based on Flores ducking/crouching in a high‑crime area | Ducking, remaining crouched while officers approached with bright light and radio noise, and "toying" with his feet in a narcotics hangout were evasive/nervous behaviors that together gave articulable facts to detain | Mere avoidance of police and crouching (possibly to tie a shoe) are innocent conduct; refusal to respond does not supply reasonable suspicion | Held: Combination of seeing police, unprovoked ducking, prolonged crouch with hands concealed despite obvious illumination and noise provided reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop; suppression denial affirmed |
| When the seizure/detention occurred (spotlight/approach vs. later verbal command) | The detention began when officers ordered Flores to stand and put hands on head after observing the suspicious crouch | Dissent: The detention occurred earlier—when officers shone a large spotlight, parked to block escape routes, and converged—so facts at that moment were insufficient for reasonable suspicion | Held: Majority treated the stop as beginning when officers ordered Flores to stand; the court relied on trial court findings about prolonged, evasive crouching prior to compliance to justify the stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (individuals may refuse police contact; refusal alone does not justify detention)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (refusal to cooperate without more does not create objective justification for detention)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (police may conduct brief investigative stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (unprovoked flight in a high‑crime area can supply reasonable suspicion)
- Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (reaffirming commonsense inferences for reasonable suspicion under Wardlow)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (objective test whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (reasonable‑suspicion facts must be articulable and objective)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (evidence obtained by exploitation of unconstitutional detention is fruit of the poisonous tree)
- People v. Souza, 9 Cal.4th 224 (state courts must follow federal approach on Terry/flight issues)
- People v. Silveria, 10 Cal.5th 195 (standard of appellate review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Kidd, 36 Cal.App.5th 12 (noting that shining a spotlight, without more, does not automatically constitute a detention)
- People v. Garry, 156 Cal.App.4th 1100 (detention found where officers spotlighted a person, exited vehicle, and immediately questioned)
- People v. Roth, 219 Cal.App.3d 211 (detention occurred where officers shone spotlight and commanded the defendant)