People v. Tacardon, 521 P.3d 563

Nighttime patrol: Deputy Grubb drove past a legally parked BMW with three occupants smoking; he made eye contact, executed a U-turn, parked ~15–20 ft behind, turned on his spotlight, and approached on foot without activating siren/emergency lights or drawing a weapon.
Passenger exited abruptly toward the rear; Grubb directed her to stand on the sidewalk and she complied — the court found she was detained at that point.
As Grubb neared the car he smelled marijuana, illuminated the interior with a flashlight, observed suspected marijuana in plain view, confirmed defendant Tacardon was on probation with a search condition, and ultimately arrested and seized large quantities of marijuana, hydrocodone pills, and cash.
Procedural history: magistrate denied suppression at preliminary hearing; superior court later granted suppression and dismissed; Court of Appeal reversed; California Supreme Court granted review to decide the legal significance of using a spotlight and remanded for factual findings about Tacardon’s awareness of the passenger’s detention.
Holding summary: the Court held that shining a spotlight for illumination does not automatically constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure; the question is decided by the totality of the circumstances (including spotlight use). The passenger was detained, and the case was remanded to determine whether Tacardon was aware of that detention and thus was himself seized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parking behind a parked car, activating a spotlight, and approaching on foot constitutes a Fourth Amendment detention	Spotlight + positioning and approach effectively detain occupants; motorists expect to yield to police lights (People relied on People v. Kidd)	Mere spotlight/approach for illumination is noncoercive; no blocking, no emergency lights, no commands, no weapon; thus consensual encounter	Spotlight use alone does not ipso facto effect a detention; apply totality of the circumstances — on these facts the Court declined to find a detention at that moment
Whether detaining a passenger by directive communicated to the driver that he was not free to leave	The passenger’s detention communicated control over the vehicle and its occupants, so the driver was also seized	Driver was not shown to have perceived the passenger’s detention; absent awareness, Brendlin rule does not apply	The passenger was detained; the magistrate failed to make/find whether Tacardon was aware of that detention — remand for factual finding and reassessment under totality of circumstances

People v. Brown, 61 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 2015) (activating emergency lights behind a parked car can constitute a detention under the totality of circumstances)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable-suspicion requirement for investigative stops)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passenger is seized when vehicle is stopped; an unintended person can be the object of a detention)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for consensual encounters vs. seizures)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (consensual encounters where no show of force, blocking, or authoritative commands were made)
People v. Kidd, 36 Cal.App.5th 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (contrary appellate holding that spotlight+parking behind car was a detention)
People v. Perez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1492 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (use of spotlights/high beams did not constitute a detention when there was no blocking or emergency lights)
United States v. Delaney, 955 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (detention where officers parked extremely close and used "take-down" lights that could blind/disorient occupants)
People v. Rico, 97 Cal.App.3d 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (brief use of spotlight to observe a vehicle was not a detention absent other assertive measures)