SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

committed in order to be a lawful stop. (United States v.
Lopez-Soto (9 th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3 rd 1101, 1104-1105;
People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4 th 917, 926
Brierton v. Department of Motor Vehicles (2005) 130
Cal.App.4 th 499, 509-510; United States v. Miranda-
Guerena (9 th Cir. 2006) 445 F.3 rd 1233.)
In establishing the necessary “reasonable
suspicion,” the officer is not required to personally
“observe all elements of criminal conduct.” He
need only “be able to ‘point to specific articulable
facts that, considered in light of the totality of the
circumstances, provide some objective
manifestation that the person detained may be
involved in criminal activity.’ [Citation]” Brierton
v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra., at p.
509.)
Then the citation (i.e., the arrest and release) is
written based on the “probable cause” to believe a
traffic infraction had been committed by the person
being cited. (Ibid.)
A random license check on the defendant’s vehicle,
resulting in information that the owner had an outstanding
traffic warrant, justified the stop of that vehicle. (People v.
Williams (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 467.)
No Law Enforcement Involvement:
A suspect who stops on his own, even if mistakenly
believing he was required to stop, but where law
enforcement does nothing affirmatively to cause him to
stop, has not been detained for purposes of the Fourth
Amendment. A detention requires a “governmental
termination of freedom of movement ‘through means
intentionally applied.’” (United States v. Nasser (9 th Cir.
2009) 555 F.3 rd 722.)
Moving Violations:
A citizen’s report of a vehicle driving erratically, with a
specific description of the vehicle (including a personalized
license plate, although one digit was wrong), where the
officer observed the vehicle shortly thereafter weave
© 2011 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
37