In California, a "stop and frisk" (Terry stop) is a legal procedure that allows police to briefly detain someone and conduct a limited pat-down search if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
The stop is based on reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. At the same time, the "frisk" involves patting down outer clothing for weapons and is allowed only if the officer believes the person poses a danger. A stop-and-frisk is different from an arrest, which requires probable cause.
In California, the stop-and-frisk law is governed by specific rules that law enforcement must adhere to. These rules are firmly rooted in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which safeguards individuals from unjustified searches and seizures by police.
This knowledge empowers you with a clear understanding of the legal standards that police must meet during a stop-and-frisk. Simply put, police can briefly detain you in a public area without a warrant if they reasonably suspect your involvement in illegal activities.
They are also permitted to perform a basic pat-down for weapons if they reasonably believe you are armed. It's important to remember that this detention is temporary and is solely based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, providing you with a sense of reassurance about your rights.
A typical example involves police noticing someone on a street corner in a known drug area who seems to exchange something with a passerby. Wearing loose clothing, police suspect he might be concealing a weapon and therefore proceed with a stop-and-frisk.
U.S. Supreme Court - 1968, Terry v. Ohio
Most of us understand that police generally cannot lawfully arrest someone unless they have probable cause to believe the person committed the crime. Did you know that California and federal laws also ban police from stopping someone (without an arrest) without reasonable suspicion, particularly for an unwarranted frisk?
If someone who has done nothing suspicious wishes to avoid police interaction, even during a brief stop like a pat-down frisk, they have the right to do so under the U.S. Supreme Court's Terry decision.
Suppose the police unlawfully initiate a Terry stop and find evidence of a crime to use against the suspect. In that case, the suspect might succeed in having the charge dismissed by excluding the illegally obtained incriminating evidence.
This means that if the stop-and-frisk was conducted illegally, any evidence found during the frisk cannot be used against the suspect in court, potentially leading to the dismissal of the charges.
In other words, law enforcement officers can only hold you temporarily if they reasonably suspect, based on facts, that you might be involved in a crime.
What Defines a Reasonable Suspicion?
The law clearly states that police can initiate a stop based on reasonable suspicion, even without probable cause. Such a stop involves some police coercion, less than a full custodial arrest, such as issuing a command to stop while intentionally blocking the person's path.
However, reasonable suspicion is not a mere guess or hunch. Instead, under the constitutional law established by the Supreme Court's Terry standard, an officer must be able to articulate factual observations that justify the stop clearly. Some common examples drawn from various state and federal cases include the following:
- A sneaky move hiding suspected weapons or contraband
- A vigilant lookout observing others who may be about to commit a suspected crime
- Surveying a retail store or another site that could be targeted for a crime
- Standing watch for and observing potential crime victims
- The suspect's attempt to escape or evade police by fleeing or taking evasive actions
- Possible nearby crime scene from which the suspect might have escaped
- Other witness descriptions align with the suspect
- Erratic behavior indicating the suspect might be under the influence
- Exchange of money indicating drug-related activity or solicitation for prostitution
- Exchange of items, which could include drugs or other illegal contraband
Law enforcement officers must be able to testify to suspicious activity if they obtain an incriminating statement or find evidence on a suspect. These requirements apply regardless of whether the stop was due to racial or other profiling.
The suspect does not have to prove that the police engaged in bias-based treatment. If the stop was illegal, the suspect's legal team can contest the admissibility of any incriminating evidence obtained during the stop.
What does the Plain-Feel Doctrine refer to?
Federal and state constitutional laws restrict how much an officer can frisk a suspect during a stop. While observation may justify initiating the stop, it does not grant the officer unlimited authority to search the suspect.
Conversely, the law permits a frisk only when the officer has a specific reason to believe that the suspect might be armed or carrying contraband that supports the suspicion. Not every stop warrants a frisk.
Additionally, the law restricts how officers may conduct frisk searches for weapons or contraband. Officers are only permitted to pat down the suspect's outer clothing. They are not allowed to reach under your clothing, search your pockets, grope you, manipulate objects by feel, or seize and search your cell phone.
If the officer recognizes an item as contraband, such as a weapon, they are permitted to confiscate it and use it as evidence against you.
The plain-feel doctrine states that an officer must immediately recognize an object as a possible weapon or contraband by its feel during a pat-down. Only after this identification can the officer move, manipulate, or take the object for closer inspection.
What If My Rights Were Violated During a Stop and Search?
These restrictions raise questions about the legitimacy of numerous stops and frisks. Occasionally, overzealous officers rely on chance or guessing, hoping to discover evidence of drug crimes, theft, illegal weapons, or to get confessions.
Law enforcement officers might exceed legal limits. They can infringe upon strict privacy rights through overly broad stops and frisks—privacy protections that apply even when individuals are in public.
Thankfully, the law offers the suspect a way to challenge unlawful stops and frisks. If officers gather incriminating evidence from a stop-and-frisk that doesn't meet constitutional standards, our California criminal defense lawyers may use the following remedies:
- Motion to suppress evidence - PC 1538.5 PC: The defendant's criminal lawyer can submit a motion to suppress that evidence under California Penal Code Section 1538.5. Such motions to suppress have a constitutional foundation. The Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable search and seizure, includes an exclusionary rule that prevents the use of evidence obtained in violation of those rights.
- Motion to dismiss charges - PC 995: After a court grants a motion to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence, California criminal procedure allows for a motion to dismiss the charge if the remaining evidence does not establish probable cause that the defendant committed the crime.
If you are subjected to an illegal stop and frisk, any evidence gained from that search cannot be used against you in court. Our law firm's early intervention can help you exclude such evidence, potentially avoiding trial and conviction, and protecting your freedom. Through prefiling intervention, we might persuade the prosecutor not to file formal charges before the court.
The Hedding Law Firm is a highly regarded criminal defense firm serving clients across Southern California, including LA County, Orange County, Ventura County, Hollywood, Riverside, and San Bernardino.
Related Content:
