Law, Law Enforcement, And The PDRK

The California courts have struck a blow against law enforcement and public safety again.

Law enforcement in the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia (PDRK, former state of California) is in a shambles. Its government is in open war upon police and the weakened law and order is leading to chaos. I’ve posted multiple times that cops across the country have “joined the fire department,” i.e., they no longer are aggressively patrolling and searching out crime. Now they sign on after roll call, answer calls for service but conduct limited self-initiated investigations on patrol.

Add to a growing list of issues, one of the most basic instruments of law enforcement is now illegal in our largest state. Detaining a possible suspect based on reasonable suspicion, is now prohibited in the PDRK. That’s not hyperbole, thanks to the state Supreme Court.

CA Supreme Court Rules A Person Can’t Be Detained for Evading Police Officers

May 10, 2024 1:36 pm

YouTube, @ABC7 News Bay Area.

The California Supreme Court has ruled a person cannot be detained for trying to avoid cops and some police unions say it’s going to make it harder for police to work effectively.

The court ruled to restrict the grounds under which police can stop and hold people for questioning. It stems from the case The People vs. Marlon Flores.

The case was brought by a man from Los Angeles who was detained on suspicion of illegal activity when he crouched down behind a car as cops approached. The man was charged with a gun crime.  The police officer’s union calls the ruling “out of touch.”

In a published opinion, authored by Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, that while this behavior can provide context, officers must be able to state a legal reason that a person is engaging in criminal activity to detain them.

A few more details from the case summary. Officers Daniel Guy and Michael Marino were on patrol at 1000pm in a known narcotics area and gang hideout. The suspect, Marlon Flores, was standing alone by a red Nissan when he saw the officers. Flores looked at them, walked around the back of the car, then “ducked” behind it. The officers pulled up and parked behind the Nissan.

Officer Marino’s body camera started as they were behind the Nissan but inside their vehicle. At 0:15 seconds, Flores’s head comes into view from behind the Nissan. He is in darkness. Flores stands and seems to be making a stretching motion with one arm. At 0:37 seconds, he disappears from sight. A few seconds later, he raises his head, then drops back out of view. He tried multiple times to look then hide from the officers. The officers, knowing the area was a know narcotics sales area, approached Flores. They ordered him to move his hands so they are visible, placed him in handcuffs and detained him for suspicion of selling narcotics.

While padding Flores down, the Nissan’s “blinkers activated” as if the officer had “hit the key fob.” Officer Guy pointed his flashlight into the car and saw what looked like a drug pipe. In response to the officer’s inquiries, Flores said that the Nissan was his and his wallet, and identification, were in the driver’s side door pocket. Guy retrieved the wallet, looked inside, and found a folded dollar bill containing suspected methamphetamine. Officers also recovered a revolver from a backpack.

In summary, officers observed a man alone in a known narcotics area try to conceal himself from them multiple times. They approached and he tried to hide his hands, which is a provocative act on the suspect’s part (hands handle weapons). Flores’ acts made the officers “reasonable suspicious” of him and he was lawfully detained for further investigation. If lawfully detained, officers may conduct a pat down search on the suspect for weapons. This pat down led to finding he owned the Nissan, with a crack pipe is in open sight from the outside of the car. Officers searched his car and found suspect methamphetamines and a revolver. Mr. Flores was subsequently convicted on the gun charge.

What the officers did was in accordance with Terry v Ohio (1968), which states police may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.” In reviewing this disaster from the PDRK, let’s review the two legal terms.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal term that refers to a police officer’s reasonably justifiable suspicion that a person has recently committed a crime, is in the process of committing a crime, or is soon going to commit a crime. This gives the officer the right to temporarily detain that person, and to do a pat-down search of his clothing to ensure he has no weapons. Reasonable suspicion, however, is more than just a hunch. A police officer who has detained a person must be able to describe a specific set of circumstances or facts that would lead any objectively reasonable law enforcement officer to suspect the individual is, or has been, engaged in a criminal activity.

Probable cause is legal justification for a police officer to make an arrest, obtain a warrant, or search a person or his property. An example of probable cause might include a police officer’s suspicion that an individual is in possession of drugs, if that person smells strongly of marijuana. Essentially, if a situation presents itself where any reasonable person would believe a suspect to have committed a crime, then a police officer may be justified in requesting a warrant or making an arrest.

What the Supreme Court in California did was raise the bar for cops to detain someone for investigation from reasonable suspicion to probably cause. That is you cannot stop and investigate a person unless you can already arrest them. Cops investigate first, then, if there is probably cause, arrest. In this case the officers lawfully detained the suspect based upon obviously suspect behavior for further investigation.

The Statue of Justice shows her with a blindfold. She must judge impartially. Police and other investigators must have their eyes wide open, judge what they view and obtain by investigation. From this they make the initial determination if a crime may have occurred (trial courts make the final determination). This court has basically told cops you must ignore what’s in plain view. To say the least, it will hamper one of the basic functions of government, law enforcement. An entity  that is already struggling with manpower shortages, lack of faith in its leadership and political overlords, and too many of the general public. This perverted ruling from a very radical court will only make crime worse in the former Golden State.

Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.

Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.

Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN