California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Soto, F065248 (Cal. App. 2014):
In People v. Rico (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 124, an officer's brief use of a spotlight to illuminate passengers in a vehicle on the freeway was not deemed to constitute a show of authority. After the officer shone the light on the vehicle, he followed the car for approximately five minutes. The driver then pulled the vehicle over to the shoulder of the freeway. The officer pulled in behind the car, parking five to six car lengths away and again activated his spotlights. (Id. at pp. 128-129.) The court found the officer's action of activating his spotlight on the vehicle while driving down the freeway was insufficient to support a finding that the motorist would have felt compelled to move over. (Id. at p. 130.) However, the officer's subsequent action of ordering the occupants from the vehicle converted the encounter into a detention. (Id. at pp. 130-131.)
Similarly here, the use of the spotlight did not constitute a detention. The officers did not spotlight defendants as they were driving but rather as they sat in their already parked vehicle. The officers initially illuminated the vehicle to determine if anyone was inside. This is similar to the use of the spotlight in People v. Rico. After seeing the car was occupied, the officers positioned their vehicle behind defendants' car and simply
Page 14
used the light to illuminate the interior of the vehicle while they made contact with defendants. Unlike People v. Perez where the officer shone spotlights and headlights into the front of the vehicle, likely blinding its occupants, the officers here used the spotlight in a much less intrusive manner. We conclude the use of the spotlight here did not constitute a detention.
Defendants also argue the fact the officers conducted a radio check was a factor in favor of finding a detention. On the issue of conducting a radio check, we find the case of People v. Bouser (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1280 instructive. There, the officer, who was in his patrol car, approached the defendant after observing him in an alleyway known for drug trafficking. The officer parked his vehicle and walked up to the defendant, who began walking away from the officer. The officer requested to speak with the defendant. The defendant stopped and allowed the officer to speak with him. The officer asked the defendant general information questions, such as his name, date of birth, and prior arrest history. (Id. at p. 1282.) The officer then used this information to fill out "a field interview card" and radioed to check for outstanding warrants. (Ibid.) He did not tell the defendant he was checking for warrants, but the defendant was close enough to hear the officer on his radio. The records check revealed an outstanding traffic warrant, which was relayed to the officer 10 minutes after his initial contact with the defendant. (Id. at p. 1283.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.