Legal Slop For The Trough: Traffic Stops

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the California Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13; see People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 125.) “The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment as requiring state and federal courts to exclude evidence that government officials obtained in violation of the amendment’s protections.” (Williams, at p. 125.)

“One of [the Fourth Amendment’s] protections is that a government official must obtain a warrant from a judicial officer before conducting a search or seizure.” (People v. Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 125.) “Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable, ‘ “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” ’ ” (People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742.) These are “ ‘exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate’s warrant for search may be dispensed with.’ ” (Williams, at p. 126.) “[T]he burden of proving the justification for the warrantless search or seizure lies squarely with the prosecution.” (People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 723.)

The Fourth Amendment also “dictates that traffic stops must be supported by articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the driver or a passenger has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law.” (People v. Durazo (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 728, 731.) Reasonable suspicion requires that “the detaining officer can 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.” (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231.) “The People have the burden to prove the detention was justified.” (People v. Benites (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 309, 320.)