ÿWPC3m :3Ê—Fk÷F§| ä³0<º-%“!é=¸&ÏÈÏÿ FæßñßÓüwúYV|~r­†PZà?É öÓß:7ÃÎ`"â”Âào×ô¸&5…¿9\æF7‘ ˜ÿgË¥ Ljv˜„É–ãüa¨ ?GÆíî÷tRbÖ~ÿ‘èbM9ò¶³®òãw8‰Èþ­¨PP z{] Û¸=§µµä–J*#ûÇkÚ¼pÂÐ_'AagXŒ‰·×J€ íbrã¢ÀÞ(™°9¼ÇÉß…Wâö‰¯?U ÚåTÛiYz…a)‡$¸©+»C â'‚Õ±JCÓ°7òÓ¢ËëªMÇåkÊËt žÏЊ+q¦•Ã¸ Ëá^ãz竱ä¸Öçz ªá>Ìì„S–H,k^.¾V“Uøý"@0à Ø<‡±Þ4Å@Ëð‘ÆûBnƒ7‚å/™¹ýý%£œ\­Äfè0ʤŒ:hÞ¬ñÁü¼¬EÞƒ;ðfWB<™h ûJo eÿ‹c‘È Rüþ‡ÄÁUsá¿?jË!œ¹.²ÊJ$D:9ÕzP`KsœÌ/@^­ÄØó¦jur7°¦×Þ+߯ח°6ëÍ\“L¦=8‘°Hö¬aV#É´ULN} %Ë 0:Ñ ^ w 4 / > m@ W 0~[ 0DÙ;1NlNnñ¼³­.` 0 AŽ# 0,TÏ#1#$1T&™…( 05h+U>†+ 0|Ä+ 1u@, 72µ,µ, 0Åç, 0Ѭ- 0³}. 0­0/ 0§Ý/ 0¡„0 0›%1 0•À1U2 p4–„4b77_"78$‡:w«:U"?!wAe˜CÛýG|ØJÇTN£T›¾UzYWÙÓ[ݬ_‰a˜c˜c˜c˜c˜c˜c˜c˜c˜c«e«e«e«e«e«e«e«e«e«e«e 1e±l±l±l±l Bm˜CENTRAL OFFICEÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô§p6— OV.6ê:i¢×+003|x4ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ úÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThese€materials€only€discuss€traffic€stops€based€on€observed€or€suspectedÐ ° ÐVehicle€Code€violations.€Of€course,€if€a€police€officer€reasonably€suspects€that€a€vehicleÐ ° Ðoccupant€is€engaged€in€other€criminal€behavior€(e.g.€that€the€driver€matches€theÐ ° Ðdescription€of€a€suspected€burglar€or€that€he€is€driving€a€stolen€car),€the€officer€can€initiateÐ ° Ða€traffic€stop€in€order€to€detain€the€criminal€suspect.€(See€òòUnited€States€v.€Arvizuóó€(2002)Ð ° Ð534€U.S.€266€[determining€that€the€officer€had€reasonable€suspicion€the€motorist€wasÐ °  Ðengaged€in€drug€trafficking;€the€Court€evaluated€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€andÐ °  Ðconsidered€the€officerððs€training€and€experience];òòóó€but€see€òòPeople€v.€Hesteróó€(2004)€119Ð °  ÐCal.€App.€4òòthóó€376€[holding€that€the€officer€lacked€a€particularized€reasonable€suspicionÐ °  Ðthat€occupants€of€a€vehicle€were€involved€in€any€criminal€activity€as€necessary€to€justifyÐ °  Ðthe€car€stop€and€detention].)(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔOne€would€make€a€ð ðprolonged€traffic€stopðð€argument€when€the€officerÐ ° Ðextends€the€driverððs€detention€while€still€ostensibly€investigating€the€Vehicle€CodeÐ ° Ðviolation,€prior€to€issuing€a€citation€or€warning€.€(See€òòPeople€v.€McGaughranóó€(1979)€25Ð ° ÐCal.€3d€577,€585„586.)€In€contrast,€when€the€officer€requires€the€driver€to€stay€on€theÐ ° Ðscene€after€he€issues€the€citation€or€warning€or€otherwise€terminates€the€traffic€stop,€oneÐ ° Ðwould€argue€that€the€driverððs€detention€was€ð ðimproperly€continuedðð,€without€reasonableÐ °  Ðsuspicion.€(See,€e.g.€United€States€v.€Salzano€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1998€158€F.€3d€1107.)€This€is€anÐ °  Ðimportant€distinction€that€often€gets€muddled.€In€an€unduly€prolonged€traffic€stopÐ °  Ðargument,€one€argues€that€the€investigation€of€the€code€violation€and€the€driverððsÐ °  Ðdetention€went€on€too€long.€In€arguing€that€the€driverððs€detention€was€improperlyÐ °  Ðcontinued€after€the€traffic€stop,€there€is€no€time€element.€Although€there€are€obstacles€toÐ °  Ðthe€viability€of€both€arguments,€the€argument€that€the€driverððs€detention€was€improperlyÐ °  Ðcontinued€after€the€traffic€stop€is€somewhat€easier€to€make.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?q#Ô 1Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThere€are€other€types€of€car€searches€which€are€not€covered€in€theseÐ ° Ðmaterials,€including€inventory€searches€and€border/checkpoint€searches. DÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú25Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔWhat€if€the€officer€observes€or€discovers€evidence€of€personal€use€ofÐ ° Ðmarijuana€in€the€passenger€compartment€(e.g.€a€small€amount€of€marijuana€or€a€pipe),€andÐ ° Ðthe€driver€shows€the€officer€documents€indicating€that€he€has€the€authority€to€useÐ ° Ðmarijuana€for€medical€purposes€ð!ð€a€legal€use,€at€least€under€California€law.€Would€theÐ ° Ðofficer€still€have€probable€cause€to€search€the€vehicleððs€trunk?€This€and€other€issuesÐ ° Ðinvolving€the€interplay€between€the€medical€marijuana€laws€and€the€Fourth€AmendmentÐ °  Ðare€currently€being€litigated.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô çÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú24Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThe€Supreme€Court€noted€that€numerous€other€states€have€similar€ð ðstop€andÐ ° Ðidentify€statutesðð.€In€some€states,€a€suspectððs€refusal€to€identify€himself€during€a€lawfulÐ °  Ðdetention€is€a€misdemeanor€offense€or€civil€violation.€In€other€states,€a€suspect€mayÐ ° Ðdecline€to€identify€himself€without€penalty.€(See€òòHiibel€v.€Sixth€Judicial€Dist.€Ct.,€supra.óó,Ð ° Ðat€182„183.)€California€does€not€have€a€ð ðstop€and€identifyðð€statute.€However,€as€discussedÐ ° Ðin€òòMcKayóó,€an€individual€who€is€stopped€for€a€Vehicle€Code€violation€may€be€required€toÐ ° Ðproduce€his€driving€license€or€other€satisfactory€evidence€of€his€identity.€And€he€may€beÐ ° Ðtaken€into€custody€if€he€fails€to€provide€reliable€proof€of€identity. ©Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThese€materials€update€and€substantially€supplement€previous€materials€onÐ ° Ðtraffic€stops€that€were€prepared€by€Kathryn€Seligman€in€June€2003.€Law€student€AlexÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔCoolmanÔ_Ô€assisted€with€research€for€these€materials. $Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔAlthough€the€Supreme€Court,€in€òòWhrenóó,€stated€that€a€vehicle€stop€isÐ ° Ðreasonable€when€the€officer€has€ð ðprobable€cause€to€believe€that€a€traffic€violation€hasÐ ° Ðoccurredðð€(517€U.S.€at€810),€subsequent€cases€have€clarified€that€only€reasonableÐ ° Ðsuspicion€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violation€is€required.€€(See€òòUnited€States€v.€Lopez„SotoóóÐ ° Ð(2000)€205€F.3d€1101,€1104,€citing€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóó€(1984)€468€U.S.€420,€439€[aÐ ° Ðtraffic€stop,€akin€to€a€òòTerryóó€stop,€requires€reasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activity].)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?q#Ô(Vm$˜˜Ìà0  àà ° à(,!ù$™™à0  àà0` (#(#àà  à 'Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThese€materials€are€intended€for€attorneys€representing€criminal€defendantsÐ ° Ðin€the€trial€court€and€on€appeal.€Generally,€an€argument€that€the€traffic€stop€or€the€vehicleÐ ° Ðsearch€was€illegal€ð!ð€i.e.€a€challenge€to€the€prosecutionððs€proffered€justification€ð!ð€needs€toÐ ° Ðbe€raised€or€litigated€in€the€trial€court€in€order€to€be€viable€on€appeal. 'Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔTemporary€operating€permits€are€also€issued€pending€the€issuance€of€licenseÐ ° Ðplates€to€show€that€all€fees€have€been€paid€to€the€Department€of€Motor€Vehicles.€TheÐ ° Ðvehicle€owner€is€just€waiting€for€the€actual€plates.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Hernandezóó€(January€11,Ð ° Ð2007)€07€C.D.O.S.€445;€òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€38€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€1136.) Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔBut€the€court,€in€òòHernandezóó,€failed€to€address€an€additional€concern€raisedÐ ° Ðin€òòSaundersóó€ð!ð€whether€one€can€tell€that€a€temporary€operating€permit€is€valid€withoutÐ ° Ðstopping€the€car€and€examining€the€permit€to€read€the€fine€print.€This€concern€could€beÐ ° Ðmet€by€requiring€the€officer€to€€attempt€a€call€to€dispatch€ð!ð€to€verify€the€validity€of€theÐ ° Ðpermit€ð!ð€before€stopping€the€car.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?q#Ô(@›‚$ššà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àô\  `‹&Times New Roman(TÅþ$››à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ à3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  Ó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔOn€January€19,€2007,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€granted€theÐ ° Ðdefendantððs€Petition€for€Certiorari€in€òòBrendlin€v.€Californiaóó,€on€the€issue€of€whether€theÐ ° Ðpolice€stop€of€a€car€results€in€the€detention€of€the€vehicleððs€passengers,€allowing€them€toÐ ° Ðcontested€the€legality€of€the€original€stop.€(Docket€No.€06„8120) ŒÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔIn€this€case,€discussed€below€in€section€IIIE,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€aÐ ° Ðdog€sniff€conducted€during€a€lawful€traffic€stop€is€not€a€Fourth€Amendment€searchÐ ° Ðrequiring€independent€reasonable€suspicion€or€probable€cause.€The€Court€accepted€theÐ ° ÐIllinois€Supreme€Courtððs€finding€that€the€dog€sniff€did€not€unduly€prolong€the€duration€ofÐ ° Ðthe€stop.€(òòIllinois€v.€Caballes,€supra.óó,€at€837.)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?q#Ô- ù- UÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThis,€of€course,€was€a€classic€pretext€stop.€However,€after€òòWhren€v.€UnitedÐ ° ÐStatesóó,€517€U.S.€at€806,€that€argument€is€no€longer€viable.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô üÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔBecause€the€detention€was€unlawful,€the€defendantððs€consent€was€invalid,Ð ° Ðand€the€drugs€discovered€during€the€search€of€the€trunk€should€have€been€suppressed.Ð ° Ð(òòUnited€States€v.€McSwain,€supra.óó,€29€F.3d€at€560„564.)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#ÔÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXáÔÔ#†XáXˆŠÌ?º#Ô Ù  ÙØØ mÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔIn€one€unpublished€case,€the€First€District€declined€to€strictly€follow€the€ruleÐ ° Ðof€òòMcSwainóó.€The€officer€pulled€over€the€car€for€expired€registration€tabs.€As€the€officerÐ ° Ðapproached€the€car,€he€saw€a€valid€temporary€operating€permit€properly€placed€in€theÐ ° Ðcarððs€rear€window.€The€officer€then€contacted€the€driver,€asked€for€a€driverððs€license,€andÐ ° T Ðalso€asked€the€driver€if€he€was€on€probation€or€parole.€After€learning€the€driver€was€onÐ ° Ðparole,€the€officer€conducted€a€parole€search.€The€court€found€that€it€was€permissible€forÐ ° Ðthe€officer€to€briefly€converse€with€the€driver,€and€to€ask€about€parole€status,€even€afterÐ ° Ðthe€officer€realized€that€there€was€no€Vehicle€Code€violation.€The€court€relied€on€theÐ ° Ðprinciple€that€mere€questioning€does€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô KÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔNevertheless,€one€might€have€a€ð ðscope€of€consentðð€issue€if:€the€officers€onlyÐ ° Ðask€for€consent€to€search€the€interior€of€the€car,€but€search€the€trunk;€the€officers€tear€openÐ ° Ðor€remove€hidden€compartments€in€the€car;€or€the€officers€search€containers€clearlyÐ ° Ðbelonging€to€a€third€party€(e.g.€a€passenger)€who€did€not€give€consent.ûÿÿdûÔ#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ôüÿÿdü Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔRemember€that€in€òòGallindoóó,€both€co„defendants€were€asked€to€sign€writtenÐ ° Ðconsent€forms€which€made€it€clear€that€consent€could€be€refused.€Also€both€defendantsÐ ° Ðexamined€the€form€carefully€before€signing€it.€(òòPeople€v.€Gallindo,€supra.óó,€229€Cal.€App.Ð ° Ð3d€at€1535„1536.)€Most€cases€can€be€distinguished€on€this€fact€alone. [Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔIn€affirming€that€Defendant€Robinette€was€still€detained€after€the€officerÐ ° Ðissued€a€warning€for€speeding,€Justice€Stevens€concluded:Ð ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àð ðThe€Ohio€Supreme€Court€was€surely€correct€in€stating:€ððMost€peopleÐ ° Ðbelieve€that€they€are€validly€in€a€police€officerððs€custody€as€long€asа` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àthe€officer€continues€to€interrogate€them.€The€police€officer€retainsÐ °  Ðà  àà ` àthe€upper€hand€and€the€accouterments€of€authority.€That€the€officer€lacksÐ °  Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àthe€legal€license€to€continue€to€detain€them€is€unknown€to€most€citizens,€andÐ °  Ða€reasonable€person€would€not€feel€free€to€walk€away€as€the€officerа ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àcontinues€to€address€him.ðððð(òòOhio€v.€Robinette,€supraóó,€519€U.S.€at€47.) ÑÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔIn€òòArturo€D.óó,€the€Supreme€Court€listed€the€many€California€cases,€prior€andÐ ° Ðsubsequent€to€òòWebsteróó,€which€have€approved€a€limited€warrantless€search€of€a€vehicle€forÐ ° Ðthe€purpose€of€locating€registration€and€other€related€identifying€documentation.€(òòArturoÐ ° ÐD.,€supra.óó,€27€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€71.)€The€Court€also€acknowledged€sister„state€and€federalÐ ° Ðauthority€which€allow€officers€to€search€vehicles€for€registration€documents.€(òòIdóó.,€at€76.)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô rÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔIn€response€to€the€defense€assertion€that€there€were€no€limits€to€theÐ ° Ðð ðidentification€searchðð€approved€by€the€Court,,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€the€trunkÐ ° Ðwould€usually€be€off€limits:€ð ð[T]he€trunk€of€a€car€is€not€a€location€where€requiredÐ ° Ðdocumentation€reasonably€would€be€expected€to€be€found,€absent€specific€informationÐ ° Ðknown€to€the€officer€indicating€the€truck€as€a€location€where€such€documents€reasonablyÐ ° Ðmay€expected€to€be€found€„€e.g.,€as€when€a€driver€has€told€an€officer€that€his€registrationÐ °  Ðor€license€is€inside€a€jacket€located€in€the€trunk.ðð€(òòIn€re€Arturo€D.,€supra.óó,€at€86,€n.€25.) ½Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àòòÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔArturo€D.óó€was€a€4„3€opinion.€Justice€Werdegar€and€Justice€Kennard€(withÐ ° ÐJustice€Brown)€filed€dissenting€opinions.€These€opinions€are€well€worth€reading,Ð ° Ðparticularly€Justice€Kennardððs€final€words€in€concluding€her€dissent.€She€states€that€in€theÐ ° Ðmodern€world,€following€the€events€of€September€11òòóó,€2001,€it€is€particularly€important€toÐ ° Ðprotect€the€principles€upon€which€our€nation€was€founded,€specifically€including€theÐ ° ÐFourth€Amendment€right€to€be€free€of€unreasonable€search€and€seizures.€Justice€KennardÐ °  Ðstated€that€the€majority€rule€of€Arturo€D.,€permitting€a€search€of€the€carððs€interior€forÐ °  Ðidentification,€Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?u#ÔÔ‡XáXXXáÔÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXáÔð ðdisregards€the€high€court's€decision€in€Ô#†ŠÌ?ˆˆŠÌ?¸#ÔòòÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆˆŠÌ?ÔKnowlesÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆˆŠÌ?H#ÔóóÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆˆŠÌ?Ô€and€chips€away€at€one€ofÐ °  Ðthe€fundamental€freedoms€guaranteed€by€our€federal€Constitution.ðð€(òòIn€re€Arturo€D,Ð °  Ðsupra.óó,€27€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€100„102.)Ô#†ŠÌ?ˆˆŠÌ?”#ÔÔ#†XáXˆŠÌ?×#Ô ™Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú20Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔ€The€majority€opinion€was€written€by€Justice€Souter,€joined€by€Chief€JusticeÐ ° ÐRehnquist,€and€Justices€Scalia,€Kenned€and€Thomas.€Justice€OððConnor€filed€a€dissentingÐ ° Ðopinion,€joined€by€Justices€Stevens,€Ginsburg€and€Breyer. ‘Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú21Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔJustice€Ginsburgððs€concurring€opinion€was€joined€by€Justice€Stevens,Ð ° ÐJustice€OððConnor€and€Justice€Breyer.€These€were€the€same€four€justices€who€hadÐ ° Ðdissented€in€òòAtwateróó.Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô pÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú22Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔAccording€to€òòPeople€v.€McKayóó,€òòsupraóó,€at€619„20,€our€state€law€authorizesÐ ° Ðcustodial€arrests€for€felony€violations€of€the€Vehicle€Code,€but€not€for€all€non„felonyÐ ° Ðviolations.€(See€Veh.€Code,€ðð€40301)€For€certain€enumerated€nonfelony€offenses,€theÐ ° Ðofficer€has€the€discretion€to€take€the€driver€into€custody€or€to€issue€a€citation.€For€otherÐ ° Ðoffenses,€the€driver€must€be€cited€unless€he/she€fails€to€present€a€driverððs€license€or€otherÐ ° Ðsatisfactory€evidence€of€identity,€refuses€to€give€a€written€promise€to€appear,€or€demandsÐ °  Ðan€immediate€appearance€before€the€magistrate.€(See€Veh.€Code,€ðððð€40302,€40303,Ð °  Ð40304).€The€Legislature€thus€presumes€that€the€vast€majority€of€Vehicle€Code€violatorsÐ °  Ðwill€not€be€taken€into€custody.€(People€v.€Superior€Court€(Simon)€(1972)€7€Cal.€3d€186,Ð °  Ð199„200.) ÏÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú23Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔòòMcKayóó€was€a€6„1€decision.€Justice€Baxter€wrote€the€majority€opinion.Ð ° ÐJustice€Werdegar€wrote€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€and€former€Justice€Brown€wrote€aÐ ° Ðconcurring€and€dissenting€opinion.€Justice€Werdegar€agreed€with€the€majorityððsÐ ° Ðinterpretation€of€Vehicle€Code€section€40302(a),€but€concluded€that€it€had€beenÐ ° Ðunnecessary€to€reach€the€question€of€whether€an€arrest€that€does€not€comply€with€state€lawÐ ° Ðis€constitutional.€Because€Mr.€McKayððs€arrest€did€comply€with€California€statutoryÐ °  Ðauthority,€ð ð[t]he€majorityððs€extensive€analysis€of€the€question€is€thus€no€more€than€obiterÐ °  Ðdictumðð.€(òòPeople€v.€McKay,€supraóó.,€at€625„626.)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô ÓÝ ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú26Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔOne€might€be€able€to€challenge€a€dog„sniff€it€was€conducted€in€anÐ ° Ðunreasonable€manner,€or€if€the€officer€opened€the€doors€and€let€the€dog€into€the€interior€ofÐ ° Ðthe€vehicle€without€probable€cause€of€consent.€(See€People€v.€Bell,€supra.,€at€769„770.)Ô#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú27Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔThus,€a€dog€sniff€is€different€than€the€thermal„imaging€device€that€wasÐ ° Ðcharacterized€as€a€search€in€òòKyllo€v.€United€Statesóó€(2001)€533€U.S.€27.€The€thermalÐ ° Ðimaging€device€could€detect€both€illegal€marijuana€growing€and€lawful€activity.€(òòIllinoisÐ ° Ðv.€Caballes,€supra.óó,€543€U.S.€at€409„410.)à  à Ý ƒ Ä($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú28Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àÔ‡ŠÌ?ˆXXÔFor€a€juvenile€or€adult€probationer,€the€officer€must€know€beforehand€thatÐ ° Ðthe€individual€is€on€probation€with€a€search€condition.€However,€for€the€parolee,€theÐ ° Ðofficer€need€only€know€that€the€individual€is€on€parole.€(òòPeople€v.€MiddletonóóÔ#†XáXˆŠÌ?r#Ô€(2005)€131Ð ° ÐCal.€App.€4òòthóó€732.) WHRENArvizuGallardo LagopretextualHanesRoyerLawlerBadilloRamierz CHPT]hereTwilley A]n Veh secsNabongC.D.O.S.Brendlin w]e DMVMcSwainRakas T]heW]hether I]nterrogationCastenadaKnowlesBerkemerMcCartyMcGaughranMimmsminimusSibronLusardi IIIAShabazzCaballes IIIESalzanoFlorenRedingerJimenoCrenshawSchnecklothBustamonteJiminezGallindoMendenhallChesternut S.CtBostickSpicerRobinetteCamargoLoewen IIEIn InHingerbaggieWerdegarFaddlerChimelBeltonVasey DibbLenniesCal.ApparresteeSouterGinsburgBreyerAtwaterwarrantlesshorriblesnonfelonyKennardMcKayPalosVerdesm]ostunreviewableHiibelAcevedo DeyWimberlybaggiesconcededlyKyllo IICMiddletonsuspicionless !"#$%&' ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ŠÌ?ˆXXÔòòò òÓ  ÓÑ8€áXXdìdÈ8ÑóóÔ‡Rµ.QˆŠÌ?ÔÑ  Ñà@@  ìàFIRST€DISTRICT€APPELLATE€PROJECT€Ð ° Ðà@@QQ"ìàTRAINING€SEMINARÐ üL Ðà@@VV"ìàÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆQRµ.©#ÔÔ‡îªùÌ?ÔJanuary€27,€2007Ð H˜ ÐÌÌÌÌà@@ìì*ìàÌÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆîîªù‰#ÔÔ‡î ˆŠÌ?ÔÌÌÌòòà@@ººìàTraffic€Stops€and€Vehicle€SearchesóóÐ è8  ÐÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆî #ÔÔ‡îªùÌ?Ôà@@"ìàKathryn€Ô_ÔSeligmanÔ_ÔÐ xÈ ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆîîªù #Ôԇ與爊Ì?ÔòòÐ  à'0# ÐóóÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆç與B#ÔØØÙÙÑ€+ÑÑ€/¿ÑTABLE€OF€CONTENTSó óÐ ° ÐÌÓbÓÓ  Óò òpageó óÐ ®þ ÐÓÓÌÓ€)akÓÓ  ÓÝ‚VmÿÝÌÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÝ‚VmtÝà0  àà ° àÝ  ÝI.€€THE€INITIATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#¼"¼"J(#.$$0(#(##à2݃Vmt¢ÝŒˆÐ ¬ ü ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù\Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝA.€€JUSTIFYING€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP:€OBSERVE€OR€REASONABLYÐ , | ÐSUSPECT€A€VEHICLE€CODE€VIOLATION€ð!ð€MAKE€A€TRAFFIC€STOPÐ ¬ ü  Ð(THE€RULE€OF€òòWHREN€V.€UNITED€STATESóó)à‚#¼"¼"J(#.œœ8` (#` (##à2݃!ù\wÝŒˆÐ ,|  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ãÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€No€more€pretext€stop€doctrine€òòóóà‚#¼"¼"J(#.ÂÂ6¸ (#¸ (##à2݃›‚ãþÝŒˆÐ ¬ü  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚âÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€Only€reasonable€suspicion€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violation€is€requiredà‚#¼"¼"J(#.¨ ¨ Y¸ (#¸ (##à3݃›‚âýÝŒˆÐ ,|  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùþÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝB.€€CHALLENGING€THE€INITIAL€TRAFFIC€STOP:€NO€VEHICLE€CODEÐ ¬ü  ÐVIOLATION€„€NO€RIGHT€TO€STOP€THE€VEHICLEà‚#¼"¼"J(#.<` (#` (##à4݃!ùþ ÝŒˆÐ ,| ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚7 Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€Deny€the€proscribed€conduct€ð!ð€The€defendant€wasnððt€speedingà‚#¼"¼"J(#.‚‚S¸ (#¸ (##à4݃›‚7 R ÝŒˆÐ ¬ü ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚S Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€Argue€that€the€observed€conduct€or€condition€did€not€violate€the€law€ð!ð€Ð ,| ÐThe€officer€was€mistaken€regarding€the€Vehicle€Code€requirementsà‚#¼"¼"J(#.h"h"Y¸ (#¸ (##à5݃›‚S n ÝŒˆÐ ¬ü ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚Î Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý3.€€Assert€that€the€stop€for€expired€registration€was€unjustified€because€aÐ ,| Ðtemporary€operating€permit€was€displayed€on€the€vehicleà‚#¼"¼"J(#.ÚÚP¸ (#¸ (##à7݃›‚Î é ÝŒˆÐ ¬ü ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù=Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝC.€€WHO€MAY€CHALLENGE€THE€INITIATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP?Ð ,| ÐONLY€DRIVERS,€NOT€PASSENGERS,€AS€PASSENGERSÐ ¬ü! ÐARE€NOT€USUALLY€DETAINED€WHEN€AN€OFFICER€PULLS€THEÐ , |# ÐVEHICLE€OVER€(THE€òòBRENDLIN„€SAUNDERSóó€RULE)à‚#P"P"I(#.::>` (#` (##à11݃!ù=XÝŒˆÐ ¬!ü% ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€Drivers€are€detained€at€the€inception€of€the€traffic€stopà‚#P"P"I(#.ÂÂQ¸ (#¸ (##à11݃›‚"ÝŒˆÐ ,#|' ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€The€California€Supreme€Court€decides€passengers€are€not€detained€whenÐ ¬$ü) Ðthe€officer€pulls€the€car€overà‚#P"P"I(#.FF7¸ (#¸ (##à12݃›‚7ÝŒˆÐ ,&|!+ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚pÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý3.€€The€passenger€is€detained€during€the€traffic€stop€if€ordered€out€of€theÐ ¬'ü"- Ðvehicleà‚#P"P"I(#.(( ¸ (#¸ (##à13݃›‚p‹ÝŒˆÐ ,)|$/ ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚VmÿÝÐ ,,|'3 ÐÝ  ÝÝ‚Vm°Ýà0  àà ° àÝ  ÝII.€€THE€SCOPE€AND€DURATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#P"P"I(#.9(#(##à15݃Vm°àÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù¤Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝA.€€THE€BASIC€LAW€GOVERNING€THE€OFFICERððS€CONDUCT€DURINGÐ 0€ ÐTHE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#P"P"I(#.øø$` (#` (##à15݃!ù¤¿ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÉÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝB.€€LIMITS€ON€THE€SCOPE€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#P"P"I(#.@@:` (#` (##à16݃!ùÉäÝŒˆÐ 0 € ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù¸Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝC.€€LIMITS€ON€HOW€LONG€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP€CAN€TAKEà‚#P"P"I(#.€€?` (#` (##à17݃!ù¸ÓÝŒˆÐ °  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù¬Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝD.€€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP€ENDS€WHEN€THE€OFFICER€ISSUES€A€CITATIONÐ 0 €  ÐOR€WARNINGà‚#P"P"I(#.ÔÔ` (#` (##à20݃!ù¬ÇÝŒˆÐ °  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùËÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝE.€€WHEN€THE€OFFICER€DISCOVERS€THAT€THERE€IS€IN€FACT€Ð 0€  ÐNO€VEHICLE€CODE€VIOLATION,€THE€OFFICER€CANNOTÐ °  ÐCONTINUE€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#P"P"I(#.~~-` (#` (##à20݃!ùËæÝŒˆÐ 0€  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚VmÿÝÌÝ  ÝÝ‚Vm6Ýà0  àà ° àÝ  ÝIII.€€SEARCHING€THE€VEHICLE€DURING€OR€AFTER€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPà‚#P"P"I(#.: : F(#(##à23݃Vm6RÝŒˆÐ 0€ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù#Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝA.€€NO€RIGHT€TO€SEARCH€INCIDENT€TO€A€TRAFFIC€STOP€AND€THEÐ ° ÐISSUANCE€OF€A€CITATION€(THE€RULE€OF€òòKNOWLES€V.€IOWAóó)à‚#P"P"I(#.8!8!H` (#` (##à23݃!ù#>ÝŒˆÐ 0€ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùoÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝB.€€CONSENT€SEARCHESà‚#P"P"I(#.¤¤#` (#` (##à25݃!ùoŠÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚GÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€Is€there€any€way€to€challenge€the€driverððs€consent?à‚#P"P"I(#.€€K¸ (#¸ (##à25݃›‚GbÝŒˆÐ 0€ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚YÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€Challenging€consent€obtained€during€the€traffic€stopà‚#P"P"I(#.L¸ (#¸ (##à26݃›‚YtÝŒˆÐ °  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚iÝà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý3.€€Challenging€consent€obtained€after€the€traffic€stopà‚#P"P"I(#.``K¸ (#¸ (##à26݃›‚i„ÝŒˆÐ 0€" ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ÅþÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚Åþx Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ àÝ  Ýa.€€Driver€still€detained€when€questioned€following€traffic€stopà‚#P"P"I(#.Ê Ê Y(#(##à27݃Åþx “ ÝŒˆÐ °$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ÅþÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚Åþ¤!Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ àÝ  Ýb.€€Officer€lacked€reasonable€suspicion€for€a€detention€following€ÝƒÅþ¤!¿!ÝŒÐ0!€&(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ÅþÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚Åþ¶"Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ àÝ  Ýà  àtraffic€stopà‚#P"P"I(#.ÂÂ*(#(##à30݃Åþ¶"Ñ"ÝŒˆÐ °"( ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚ÅþÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚Åþº#Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà ¸ àÝ  Ýc.€€Remember€that€the€traffic€stop€does€not€always€end€with€theÐ 0$€* Ðissuance€of€a€citation€or€warningà‚#P"P"I(#.?(#(##à32݃Åþº#Õ#ÝŒˆÐ °%!, ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ù%Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝC.€€IDENTIFICATION€SEARCHES:€THE€OFFICER€CAN€SEARCH€THEÐ 0'€". ÐVEHICLE€FOR€REGISTRATION€OR€A€DRIVERððS€LICENSE€IF€THEÐ °($0 ÐDRIVER€FAILS€TO€PRODUCE€THESE€DOCUMENTS€(THE€RULE€OFÐ 0*€%2 ÐòòARTURO€D.óó)à‚#P"P"I(#.ì ì ` (#` (##à32݃!ù%6%ÝŒˆÐ °+'4 ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÓ&Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝD.€€SEARCH€OF€THE€VEHICLE€INCIDENT€TO€THE€ARREST€OF€A€€€€€Ð 0€ ÐRECENT€OCCUPANTà‚#P"P"I(#.jj#` (#` (##à36݃!ùÓ&î&ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚õ'Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€The€basic€rules€governing€searches€incident€to€arrestà‚#P"P"I(#.  M¸ (#¸ (##à36݃›‚õ'(ÝŒˆÐ 0 € ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚)Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€The€Constitution€permits€a€custodial€arrest€for€a€minor€traffic€offense€Ð °  Ð(The€rule€of€òòAtwateróó€)à‚#P"P"I(#.""/¸ (#¸ (##à38݃›‚)!)ÝŒˆÐ 0 €  ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚\*Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý3.€€In€California,€a€custodial€arrest€for€a€fine„only€Vehicle€Code€arrest€isÐ °  Ðillegal€but€not€unconstitutional.€California€law€permits€a€custodialÐ 0€  Ðarrest€if€the€person€stopped€for€a€Vehicle€Code€violation€does€notÐ °  Ðpresent€a€driverððs€license€or€other€satisfactory€documentary€evidenceÐ 0€  Ðof€identification€(The€rule€of€òòMcKayóó)à‚#P"P"I(#.TT>¸ (#¸ (##à40݃›‚\*w*ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚Í,Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý4.€€An€individual€may€be€arrested€for€violating€a€state€law€requiring€him€toÐ 0€ Ðdisclose€his€name€during€a€lawful€detention€(The€rule€of€òòHiibelóó)à‚#P"P"I(#.>!>!Y¸ (#¸ (##à43݃›‚Í,è,ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùL.Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝE.€€PROBABLE€CAUSE€SEARCHES€AND€DOG€SNIFFSà‚#P"P"I(#.$$9` (#` (##à45݃!ùL.g.ÝŒˆÐ 0€ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚:/Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý1.€€The€scope€of€the€probable€cause€searchà‚#P"P"I(#.¨¨>¸ (#¸ (##à45݃›‚:/U/ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚ÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚›‚<0Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà ` àÝ  Ý2.€€Dog€sniffs€are€not€searches€requiring€probable€causeà‚#P"P"I(#.$$L¸ (#¸ (##à47݃›‚<0W0ÝŒˆÐ 0€ ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùÿÝÝ  ÝÝ‚!ùL1Ýà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àÝ  ÝF.€€PROBATION€AND€PAROLE€SEARCHESà‚#P"P"I(#.0` (#` (##à48݃!ùL1g1ÝŒˆÐ °  ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ÓÓ hÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àÌÌà  àÌÌÌà  àÌÌÔ‡¼¾° »ˆŠÌ?Ôà  àà ` àÌà  àÌÌà  àÌà  àÌÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆ »¼¾°ï2#Ôà  àԇ與爊Ì?Ôò òòòÐ Š+Ú&/ ÐÑ/¿Ñâ /âÙÙØØâ /âÑ  ÑÌÌÓ  ÓTRAFFIC€STOPS€AND€VEHICLE€€SEARCHESÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆç與~3#Ôó óóóÐ À ÐÓ4ÓÌÓ  Óò òÔ‡ WÁˆŠÌ?ÔBy€Kathryn€Ô_ÔSeligmanÔ_ÔÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ H ˜ ÐStaff€Attorney,€First€District€Appellate€ProjectÐ ‚ Ò ÐJanuary€2007Ô#†ŠÌ?ˆ WÁ4#Ôó óÐ ¼  ÐÌÌÓ  Óà  àIn€the€First€District,€we€find€that€most€appeals€raising€Fourth€AmendmentÐ öF  Ðsuppression€issues€involve€traffic€stops.€In€the€ð ðtypicalðð€scenario,€the€police€officer€pullsÐ öF  Ðthe€vehicle€over€for€an€observed€Vehicle€Code€violation,€no€matter€how€minor.€During€theÐ öF  Ðofficerððs€exchange€with€the€driver,€either€before€or€after€she€issues€a€citation€or€warningÐ öF  Ðfor€the€code€violation,€the€officer€obtains€the€driverððs€consent€to€search€the€vehicle.Ð öF  ÐOccasionally,€the€officer€relies€on€another€justification€for€the€search€ð!ð€e.g.€probableÐ öF Ðcause€or€the€need€to€locate€the€driverððs€identification.€Whatever€the€rationale,€the€officerÐ öF Ðsearches€the€vehicle€and€finds€contraband.Ð öF ÐÌà  àOver€the€last€ten€years,€there€have€been€significant€changes€in€the€law€whichÐ öF Ðbasically€make€it€easier€for€a€law€enforcement€officer€to€stop€and€search€a€vehicle.€Thus,Ð öF Ðthe€arguments€available€to€the€defense€attorney€who€wishes€to€challenge€the€stop€andÐ öF Ðsearch€are€limited.€Nevertheless,€we€still€have€some€victories€in€this€area,€mostly€inÐ öF Ðunpublished€opinions.Ð öF ÐÌà  àThese€materials€will€address€three€topics:€Ð öF Ðà  àÌà  à1)What€circumstances€justify€the€initiation€of€a€traffic€stop?€Ð ö F ÐÌà  à2)What€can€the€officer€ask€and€do€during€the€traffic€stop?€Ð ö"F ÐÌà  à3)What€circumstances€justify€a€search€of€the€vehicle€during€or€immediately€after€€€€€Ð ö$F  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€the€traffic€stop?Ð  ö%F! Ðò òÔ‡¼¾° »ˆŠÌ?ÔÓ  ÓI.€€THE€INITIATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆ »¼¾°=#ÔÐ ° ÐÓ"=ÓÌà0  àA.€€JUSTIFYING€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP:€OBSERVE€OR€REASONABLYÐ Â ÐSUSPECT€A€VEHICLE€CODE€VIOLATION€ð!ð€MAKE€A€TRAFFIC€STOPÐÀ(#(# Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€(THE€RULE€OF€òòWHREN€V.€UNITED€STATESóó)Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àó óIn€1996,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€decided€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó€(1996)Ð º  Ð517€U.S.€806,€making€it€much€easier€for€police€officers€to€pull€over€a€vehicle€and€itsÐ º  Ðoccupants.€òòAll€the€officer€needs€is€reasonable€suspicion€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violationóó.€IfÐ º  Ðthe€officer€observes€a€violation,€no€matter€how€trivial,€she€can€initiate€a€traffic€stop.€TheÐ º  Ðofficer€can€pull€the€car€over€for€expired€registration,€a€rolling€stop,€tailgating,€a€defectiveÐ º  Ðbreak€light€or€an€object€dangling€from€the€rear€view€mirror.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð º  ÐÌà  àòòò ò1.€No€more€pretext€stop€doctrineó óóó€òòò òð!ð€officerððs€subjective€motivation€is€irrelevantó óóóÐ º  ÐÌà  àIt€no€longer€matters€if€the€officer€uses€the€observed€Vehicle€Code€violation€as€aÐ º  Ðpretext€to€pull€the€car€over€because€she€has€a€hunch€that€the€driver€might€be€carryingÐ º  Ðdrugs€or€contraband€ð!ð€a€hunch€based€on€the€appearance€of€the€vehicle€or€its€occupants.Ð º  ÐThe€officer€can€follow€the€car€and€look€for€an€equipment€violation€or€wait€for€the€driverÐ º  Ðto€commit€a€traffic€violation.€Then,€she€can€pull€the€car€over.€Reliance€on€the€trafficÐ º  Ðviolation€as€a€pretext€to€stop€the€car€may€be€explicit.€€(See,€e.g.,€òòPeople€v.€Gomezóó€(2004)Ð º  Ð117€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€531€[suspecting€that€drug€dealing€was€occurring€at€a€residence,€theÐ º  Ðdetective€instructed€a€patrol€officer€to€follow€a€vehicle€departing€from€the€residence,€stopÐ º  Ðthe€driver€for€an€observable€traffic€violation,€and€obtain€consent€to€search].)Ð º  ÐÌà  àIn€òòWhrenóó,€the€Supreme€Court€did€away€with€the€ð ðpretext€stop€doctrineðð.€Under€thatÐ º  Ðdoctrine,€a€traffic€stop€could€be€ultimately€ruled€illegal€if€the€police€officer€had€used€theÐ º  ÐÔ_Ôobserved€Vehicle€Code€violation€as€a€pretext€to€pull€over€the€car.€The€defendant€had€toÐ ° Ðmeet€the€difficult€burden€of€proving€that€the€officerððs€primary€motivation€was€to€verify€aÐ ° Ðhunch€that€the€driver€was€carrying€drugs€ð!ð€a€mere€hunch,€not€reasonable€suspicion.€(SeeÐ ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Mirandaóó€(1993)€17€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€917,€923„25.)€In€òòWhrenóó,€the€Court€held€thatÐ ° Ðpretext€stops€do€not€violate€the€Constitution.€As€long€as€the€officer€reasonably€believed,Ð ° Ðbased€on€objective€facts,€€that€the€driver€was€violating€the€Vehicle€Code,€her€subjectiveÐ °  Ðmotivation€is€deemed€irrelevant.€(See€òòWhren€v.€United€States,€supraóó.,€517€U.S.€at€812„Ð °  Ð813;€òòPeople€v.€Gallardoóó€(2005)€130€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€234.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àIn€òòArkansas€v.€Sullivanóó€(2001)€532€U.S.€769,€the€Supreme€Court€reiterated€its€priorÐ °  Ðholdings€in€òòWhren€óóand€òòAtwater€v.€Lago€Vistaóó€(2001)€532€U.S.€318€[an€arrest€for€a€fine„Ð °  Ðonly€traffic€violation€does€not€violate€the€Constitution].€The€Arkansas€Supreme€Court€hadÐ °  Ðgranted€the€defendantððs€suppression€motion,€holding€that€the€traffic€stop€and€arrest€wereÐ °  Ðillegally€pretextual.€Although€the€officer€had€pulled€over€the€defendantððs€car€for€observedÐ °  ÐVehicle€Code€violations€(speeding€and€tinted€windows),€and€then€arrested€him€forÐ ° Ðspeeding,€driving€without€registration€and€possession€of€a€hatchet,€the€court€concludedÐ ° Ðthat€the€officerððs€ð ðulterior€motiveðð€was€to€investigate€a€hunch€of€drug€trafficking.€TheÐ ° ÐArkansas€Supreme€Court€had€expressly€declined€to€follow€òòWhrenóó,€noting€that€it€involvedÐ ° Ða€pretextual€stop€rather€than€a€pretextual€arrest.€òòThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€made€itÐ ° Ðcrystal€clear€that€òòWhrenóó€precludes€any€Fourth€Amendment€challenge€based€on€the€actualÐ ° Ðsubjective€motives€of€the€officers.€€Pretext€traffic€stops,€€pretext€arrests€and€pretextÐ ° Ðsearches€are€all€legitimate.óó€(òòArkansas€v.€Sullivan,€supraóó.,€532€U.S.€at€771„772.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àòòò ò2.€Only€reasonable€suspicion€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violation€is€requiredó óóóÐ ° ÐÌÒe°Òà  àNote€that€the€officer€initiating€the€traffic€stop€needs€only€a€reasonable€suspicion€of€aÐ ªú ÐVehicle€Code€violation.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Rodriguezóó€(2006)€143€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€1137,€1148Ð ªú Ð[reasonable€suspicion€is€less€than€probable€cause,€but€more€than€a€mere€speculation€orÐ ªú Ðhunch];€òòPeople€v.€Bell€óó(1996)€43€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€754,€761.)€The€officer€does€not€have€to€beÐ ª ú Ðabsolutely€certain€that€the€observed€condition€or€conduct€is€prohibited.€€(See€òòPeople€v.Ð ª!ú ÐSaundersóó€(2006)€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€1129,€1136„1137€[holding€that€the€possibility€of€an€innocentÐ ª"ú Ðexplanation€for€the€suspected€violation,€a€missing€front€license€plate,€did€not€preclude€aÐ ª#ú Ðtraffic€stop€to€investigate];€òòPeople€v.€Hanes€óó(1997)€60€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.€6€[holding€thatÐ ª$ú  Ðofficerððs€suspicion€that€very€dark€windows€were€illegally€tinted€was€reasonable€andÐ ª%ú ! Ðsufficient€to€justify€a€stop,€given€the€officerððs€observations€and€experience].)In€most€cases,Ð ª&ú!" Ðthe€officerððs€reasonable€suspicion€will€be€based€on€his€personal€observations.€However,€inÐ ª'ú"# Ðsome€circumstances,€the€officer€can€rely€on€information€from€other€officers,€a€reliableÐ ª(ú#$ Ðinformant,€or€even€an€anonymous€tip.(òòPeople€v.€Wellsóó€(2006)€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€1078€[holding€thatÐ ª)ú$% Ðâ âan€uncorroborated€anonymous€tip€that€a€driver€was€weaving€all€over€the€roadway€providedÐ ª*ú%& Ðreasonable€suspicion€for€a€stop€to€check€for€intoxication]€×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âÌà  àò òB.€€CHALLENGING€THE€INITIAL€TRAFFIC€STOP:€NO€VEHICLE€CODE€€Ð ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€VIOLATION€„€NO€RIGHT€TO€STOP€THE€VEHICLEÐ ®þ ÐÌà  àó óWhy€challenge€the€officerððs€right€to€pull€over€the€vehicle?€Generally,€the€defendantÐ ª ú Ðchallenges€the€initiation€of€the€traffic€stop€in€order€to€challenge€a€search€conducted€duringÐ ª ú Ðthe€traffic€stop€and€to€suppress€evidence€discovered€during€that€search.€The€defendantÐ ª ú Ðargues€that€consent,€probable€cause€or€other€justification€for€the€search€„„€acquired€duringÐ ª ú Ðthe€unjustified€traffic€stop€„„€is€illegal.€(See€òòFlorida€v.€Royeróó€(1983)€460€U.S.€491,€507„08;Ð ª ú  ÐòòPeople€v.€Rodriguez,€supraóó.,€143€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€1137;€òòPeople€v.€Gallantóó€(1990)€225€Cal.Ð ªú  ÐApp.€3d€200,€211;€òòPeople€v.€Lawler€óó(1973)€9€Cal.3d€156,€163„64.;€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ªú  ÐChavez„Valenzuelaóó€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2001)€268€F.3d€719,€727„728.)€Remember:€Because€the€trafficÐ ªú  Ðstop,€the€detention€of€the€motorist,€and€any€subsequent€search€are€initiated€without€aÐ ªú  Ðwarrant,€the€prosecution€bears€the€burden€of€justifying€the€officerððs€conduct.€(òòPeople€v.Ð ªú  ÐWilliamsóó€(1999)€20€Cal.€4òòthóó€119,€127„128;€òòPeople€v.€Boweróó€(1979)€24€Cal.€3d€638,€644;Ð ªú ÐòòBadillo€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(1956)€46€Cal.€2d€269,€272.)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ªú Ðà  à€€€€€€Ð ªú Ðà  àò ò1.€€Deny€the€proscribed€conduct€ð!ð€The€defendant€wasnððt€speeding!ó óÐ ªú ÐÌà  àIn€the€trial€courts,€defendants€sometimes€challenge€the€claimed€Vehicle€CodeÐ ¨ø Ðviolation€ð!ð€the€defendant€asserts€that€he€werenððt€really€speeding€or€tailgating.€He€mightÐ ¨ø Ðcontend€that€the€officer€fabricated€the€basis€for€the€stop.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Rodriguez,€supraóó.,Ð ¨ø Ð143€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€1148„1149€[when€the€defendant€claims€that€the€officer€fabricated€theÐ ¨ø Ðbasis€for€the€stop,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether€the€officer€testified€truthfullyÐ ¨ø Ðregarding€his€observations].)€The€defendant€might€claim€that€the€officer€could€not€haveÐ ¨ø Ðseen€the€small€crack€in€the€vehicleððs€taillight€in€the€dark€and€from€a€distance.€Such€aÐ ¨ø Ðchallenge€usually€triggers€a€credibility€contest€between€the€defendant„driver€and€the€policeÐ ¨ø Ðofficer.€If€the€trial€court€believes€the€officer,€itððs€not€worth€repeating€this€argument€onÐ ° Ðappeal.€However,€it€might€be€worth€appealing€the€initiation€of€the€stop€if€testimonyÐ ° Ðestablished€that€the€officerððs€claimed€observations€were€physically€impossible.Ð ° ÐÌà  àòòò ò2.€€Argue€that€the€observed€conduct€or€condition€did€not€violate€the€law€ð!ð€Ð ° Ðà  àThe€officer€was€mistaken€regarding€the€Vehicle€Code€requirementsó óóóÐ ª ú ÐÌà  àWhat€if€the€police€officer€believed€that€the€driverððs€conduct€or€the€condition€of€theÐ ¤ ô Ðvehicle€violated€the€Vehicle€Code,€but€it€turns€out€that€the€officer€was€wrong€about€theÐ ¤ ô Ðlaw;€the€observed€facts€did€not€constitute€a€violation.€Can€the€driver€challenge€the€legalityÐ ¤ ô  Ðof€the€traffic€stop€and€any€search€that€resulted€from€that€stop,€arguing€that€she€wasÐ ¤ô  Ðunlawfully€detained?€The€answer€is€generally,€yes.Ð ¤ô  ÐÌà  àA€traffic€stop€based€solely€on€an€officerððs€mistake€of€law,€even€if€made€in€goodÐ ¤ô  Ðfaith,€is€not€based€on€reasonable€suspicion€and€is€thus€unlawful.€(òòPeople€v.€Whiteóó€(2003)Ð ¤ô  Ð107€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€636;€òòPeople€v.€Ramirezóó€(2006)€140€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€849;€òòPeople€v.Ð ¤ô ÐHernandez€óó(2003)€110€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.1);€òòUnited€States€v.€Milleróó€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1998)€146Ð ¤ô ÐF.3d€274,€279;€òòUnited€States€v.€Lopez„Valdezóó€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1999)€178€F.3d€282,€288„289.)€Ð ¤ô Ðð ðIf€an€officer€simply€does€not€know€the€law,€and€makes€a€stop€based€upon€objective€factsÐ ¤ô Ðthat€cannot€constitute€a€violation,€his€suspicions€cannot€be€reasonable.ðð€(òòIn€re€Justin€K.óóÐ ¤ô Ð(2002)€98€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€695,€700.)Ð ¤ô ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€leading€ð ðmistake€of€lawðð€cases€is€òòPeople€v.€Whiteóó,€òòsupra.óó,€a€decisionÐ ¤ô Ðfrom€the€First€District,€Division€Three.€In€òòWhiteóó,€the€defendants€were€driving€downÐ ¤ô ÐHighway€101€in€Humboldt€County.€A€CHP€Officer€pulled€the€car€over€because€heððdÐ ¤ô Ðobserved€two€conditions€that€he€believed€violated€the€law:€1)the€car€had€no€front€licenseÐ ¤ô Ðplate,€but€only€a€back€plate€issued€by€Arizona;€and€2)€an€air€freshener€was€hanging€fromÐ ¤ô Ðthe€rear€view€mirror.€While€questioning€the€driver,€during€the€traffic€stop,€the€officer€notedÐ ¤ô Ðthe€odor€of€burnt€marijuana.€Suspecting€that€there€was€marijuana€in€the€car,€the€officerÐ ¤ ô Ðordered€both€the€driver€and€passenger€out€of€the€vehicle€and€searched€the€passengerÐ ¤!ô Ðcompartment.€He€found€some€marijuana€in€the€passenger€compartment,€but€also€smelledÐ ¤"ô Ðfresh€marijuana€emanating€from€the€trunk.€In€the€trunk,€the€officer€found€five€pounds€ofÐ ¤#ô Ðmarijuana€and€substantial€cash.€(òòPeople€v.€White,€supra.óó,€107€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€640.)Ð ¤$ô  ÐÌà  àThe€court€found€that€the€initial€traffic€stop€was€illegal,€and€that€consequently,€theÐ ¤&ô!" Ðvehicle€search€was€unconstitutional;€the€evidence€found€in€the€car€was€suppressed.€NeitherÐ ¤'ô"# Ðof€the€conditions€observed€by€the€CHP€officer€ð!ð€the€missing€front€license€plate€or€theÐ ¤(ô#$ Ðdangling€air€freshener€ð!ð€constituted€a€Vehicle€Code€violation.€The€officerððs€belief€thatÐ ¤)ô$% Ðthese€conditions€were€illegal€was€not€reasonable€even€though€the€officer€acted€in€goodÐ ¤*ô%& Ðfaith.€ð ð[T]here€is€no€good€faith€exception€to€the€exclusionary€rule€for€police€who€enforce€aÐ ¤+ô&' Ðlegal€standard€that€does€not€exist.ðð€(òòPeople€v.€White,€supra.óó,€107€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€644.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àFirst,€the€officer€had€believed€that€two€license€plates€were€legally€required.€But€theÐ ° Ðback€plate€was€issued€by€Arizona,€and€Arizona€law€requires€only€one€license€plate€on€theÐ ° Ðrear€of€the€car.€Relying€on€a€Ninth€Circuit€case,€òòPeople€v.€Twilleyóó€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2000)€222€F.3dÐ ° Ð1095,€the€court€held€that€the€officerððs€erroneous€belief€that€Arizona€law€required€two€platesÐ °  Ðdid€not€provide€reasonable€suspicion.€The€officerððs€legal€mistake€was€inexcusable€becauseÐ °  ÐArizona€is€a€contiguous€state€and€Arizona€motorists€frequently€drive€on€California€roads.Ð °  Ð(See€òòPeople€v.€White,€supra.óó,€107€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€643„644.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€air€freshener€hanging€from€the€rear€view€mirror€did€not€provideÐ °  Ðreasonable€cause€for€the€stop€because€it€had€not€obstructed€the€driverððs€view€through€theÐ °  Ðwindshield.€The€officer€had€mistakenly€believed€that€drivers€are€prohibited€from€hangingÐ °  Ðòòanyóó€objects€from€their€rear€view€mirrors.€He€had€erroneously€relied€on€a€Vehicle€CodeÐ °  Ðsection€that€prohibits€affixing€or€attaching€any€object€to€the€carððs€window.€Plainly,€theÐ ° Ðdangling€air€freshener€was€not€attached€to€the€windshield.€A€hanging€object€only€violatesÐ ° Ðthe€law€(under€another€Vehicle€Code€section)€if€it€obstructs€the€driverððs€view€through€theÐ ° Ðwindshield.€The€officer€had€not€testified€that€the€dangling€air€freshener€obstructed€theÐ ° Ðdriverððs€view,€nor€that€the€car€was€driven€erratically,€suggesting€that€the€driverððs€view€wasÐ ° Ðimpaired.€With€no€evidence€of€obstruction,€the€hanging€object€did€not€provide€a€legitimateÐ ° Ðbasis€for€the€traffic€stop.€(òòPeople€v.€White,€supra.óó,€107€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€641„642.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àOf€course,€if€the€officer€merely€cites€the€wrong€Vehicle€Code€section,€but€testifiesÐ ° Ðto€observations€that€establish€reasonable€suspicion€of€another€code€section€violation,€thenÐ ° Ðthe€traffic€stop€is€lawful.€ð ð[A]n€officerððs€reliance€on€the€wrong€statute€does€not€render€hisÐ ° Ðactions€unlawful€if€there€is€a€right€statute€that€applies€to€the€defendantððs€conduct.ðð€(òòIn€reÐ ° ÐJustin€K.,€supra.óó,€98€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€700.)€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€many€of€these€mistake€of€law€cases,€as€in€òòWhiteóó,€the€officer€erroneouslyÐ °  Ðpresumes€that€the€law€flatly€prohibits€the€observed€condition.€Consequently,€the€officerÐ °! Ðdoes€not€testify€to€observations€that€might€have€established€the€elements€of€an€actual€codeÐ °" Ðviolation.€An€example€of€this€occurs€in€a€pair€of€tinted€window€cases.€Because€not€allÐ °# Ðtinted€windows€are€prohibited,€the€officer€must€testify€to€observations€that€reasonablyÐ °$  Ðsupport€a€belief€that€the€windows€on€the€defendantððs€car€were€actually€illegal.€€Ð °%!! ÐÌà  àIn€òòPeople€v.€Butleróó€(1988)€202€Cal.€App.€3d€602,€the€police€officer€stopped€the€carÐ °'## Ðmerely€because€it€had€tinted€windows.€Because€the€officer€mistakenly€believed€that€allÐ °($$ Ðtinted€windows€violated€the€Vehicle€Code,€he€did€not€testify€to€any€additional€factsÐ °)%% Ðreasonably€suggesting€that€the€tinted€glass€on€defendantððs€car€was€illegal.€Moreover,€heÐ °*&& Ðhad€observed€the€car€in€the€dark€as€it€sped€past€him,€so€he€had€not€really€had€theÐ °+'' Ðopportunity€to€make€the€necessary€observations.€The€Court€of€Appeal€refused€to€hold€thatÐ ° Ðan€officer€could€stop€a€vehicle€merely€because€it€had€tinted€windows€in€order€to€investigateÐ ° Ðfurther.€The€court€ruled€the€traffic€stop€illegal.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€contrast,€in€òòPeople€v.€Hanesóó€(1997)€60€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.€6,€the€appellate€courtÐ ° Ðheld€that€the€California€Highway€Patrol€Officer€had€the€right€to€stop€the€defendantððs€car,Ð °  Ðbecause€he€reasonably€believed€that€the€carððs€windows€were€illegally€tinted.€The€CHPÐ °  Ðofficer€testified€that€he€was€aware€of€the€distinction€between€legal€and€illegal€tinting,€andÐ °  Ðthat€he€had€stopped€approximately€400€cars€on€suspicion€of€having€illegally€tintedÐ °  Ðwindows.€Moreover,€he€had€observed€the€defendantððs€car€driving€very€slowly€through€aÐ °  Ðlighted€intersection,€and€the€front€window€appeared€as€black€as€the€paint€on€the€car.€ThisÐ °  Ðtestimony€established€a€reasonable€suspicion€of€illegal€tinting.Ð °  Ðà  àÌà  àAs€one€can€tell€from€this€discussion,€there€are€some€types€of€Vehicle€CodeÐ °  Ðviolations€that€are€routinely€cited€in€these€mistake€of€law€cases.€Pay€particular€attention€toÐ ° Ðcases€involving€tinted€windows,€objects€dangling€from€the€rear€view€mirror€(especially€airÐ ° Ðfresheners),€single€license€plates,€cracked€or€inoperative€lights,€or€unusual€lights.€(See,€e.g.Ð ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Hernandez,€supra.óó,€110€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.€1€[driver€improperly€stopped€forÐ ° Ðhaving€a€neon€light€around€the€license€plate,€which€was€not€a€Vehicle€Code€violation].)Ð ° ÐAlso,€look€for€cases€where€the€driver€is€stopped€for€failing€to€signal€a€turn€or€a€laneÐ ° Ðchange.€Under€Vehicle€Code€section€22107,€signaling€is€only€required€if€another€vehicleÐ ° Ðmay€be€affected€by€the€driverððs€movement.€(See€òòIn€re€Jaime€P.óó€(2006)€40€Cal.€4òòthóó€128,€131Ð ° Ð[prosecution€conceded€that€the€driverððs€failure€to€signal€a€turn€did€not€legally€justify€aÐ ° Ðvehicle€stop€as€no€other€vehicles€were€affected].)Ð ° ÐÌà  àòòò ò3.€€Assert€that€the€stop€for€expired€registration€was€unjustified€because€aÐ ° Ðà0  àà ° à€€€€€€€€€€€temporary€operating€permit€was€displayed€on€the€vehicleó óóóЪús#s# ÐÌà  àUnder€California€law,€vehicles€are€required€to€be€registered,€and€registration€mustÐ ¤ ô Ðbe€renewed€annually.€(Veh.€Code,€secs.€4000(a)(1)€and€4601(c).)€Current€registration€tabsÐ ¤!ô Ðindicating€the€month€and€year€of€expiration€must€be€attached€to€the€rear€license€plate.Ð ¤"ô Ð(Veh.€Code,€sec.€5204(a))€If€a€law€enforcement€officer€reasonably€suspects€that€a€vehicleððsÐ ¤#ô Ðregistration€has€expired,€the€officer€can€stop€the€vehicle€and€detain€the€driver€to€check€hisÐ ¤$ô  Ðlicense€and€registration.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Saundersóó€(2006)€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€1129,€1135.)€òòExpiredÐ ¤%ô ! Ðregistration€stops€are€extremely€commonóó.Ð ¤&ô!" ÐÌà  àIf€an€officer€sees€that€a€car€has€expired€registration€tabs€on€the€license€plate,€he€hasÐ ¤(ô#$ Ðreasonable€suspicion€to€initiate€a€traffic€stop.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Nabongóó€(2004)€115€Cal.€App.Ð ¤)ô$% Ð4òòthóó€Supp.€1òòóó.)€But€what€if€the€officer€also€sees€a€temporary€operating€permit€displayed€in€theÐ ¤*ô%& Ðcarððs€window,€indicating€that€the€renewal€of€the€vehicleððs€registration€is€in€process?€Ð ¤+ô&' ÐCan€the€officer€still€pull€over€the€car?Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€California,€if€the€owner€of€the€vehicle€has€begun€but€not€completed€theÐ ° Ðregistration€process€(e.g.€she€has€not€done€the€required€smog€check),€she€can€obtain€aÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permit€to€display€in€the€vehicleððs€front€or€rear€window.€With€aÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permit,€the€vehicle€can€be€lawfully€driven€on€the€roadways€until€theÐ °  Ðregistration€process€is€completed€and€current€tabs€are€received.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Saunders,Ð °  Ðsupra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1132„1133;€òòPeople€v.€Nabong,€supra.óó,€115€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.€3„4.)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐThe€temporary€operating€permit€is€red€with€a€large€bold€face€white€number.€The€numberÐ °  Ðrepresents€the€month€in€which€the€permit€expires.€For€example,€if€the€number€on€theÐ °  Ðtemporary€operating€permit€is€ð ð3",€that€means€the€permit€expires€on€the€last€day€of€March,Ð °  Ðand€the€vehicle€can€be€lawfully€operated€(without€current€registration€tabs)€through€MarchÐ °  Ð31òòstóó.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€at€1132„1133.)€In€addition€to€the€large€number,€thereÐ °  Ðis€other€relevant€information€written€on€the€temporary€operating€permit,€including€theÐ °  Ðmake€of€the€vehicle,€the€license€plate€number,€the€vehicle€identification€number,€and€theÐ ° Ðapplicable€year.€(òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€at€1133.)€Ð ° ÐÌà  àIf€the€officer€observes€both€expired€registration€tabs€(on€the€license€plate)€and€theÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permit€(on€the€vehicleððs€window)€„„€as€he€drives€behind€or€past€the€carÐ ° Є„€he€will€be€able€to€see€the€bold„face€number€and€determine€the€date€on€which€theÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permit€expires.€But€it€is€unlikely€that€the€officer€could€read€the€otherÐ ° Ðinformation€printed€on€the€permit€(e.g.€the€license€number€and€the€applicable€year)€withoutÐ ° Ðstopping€the€vehicle.€Under€these€circumstances,€does€the€officer€have€reasonableÐ ° Ðsuspicion€to€initiate€a€traffic€stop?Ð ° ÐÌà  àUntil€last€year,€the€only€published€California€case€on€this€issue€was€òòPeople€v.Ð ° ÐNabongóó€ð!ð€a€case€from€the€San€Mateo€Superior€Court€Appellate€Division.€In€òòNabongóó,€aÐ ° Ðpolice€officer€pulled€over€the€defendantððs€car€for€expired€registration.€The€license€plateÐ ° Ðtabs€indicated€that€registration€had€expired,€but€the€officer€saw€a€temporary€operatingÐ °  Ðpermit€in€the€carððs€rear€window€which€bore€the€number€ð ð1",€indicating€that€the€car€couldÐ °! Ðbe€lawfully€driven€until€the€last€day€of€January;€the€traffic€stop€occurred€on€January€6òòthóó.Ð °" ÐThe€officer€suspected€that€the€temporary€operating€permit€might€be€invalid€because€in€twoÐ °# Ðyears,€heððd€stopped€about€30„40€vehicles€displaying€temporary€operating€permits,€andÐ °$  Ðabout€half€of€them€turned€out€to€be€invalid.€The€officer€could€have€called€his€departmentÐ °%!! Ðfor€a€registration€check,€but€he€didnððt€do€so€in€this€case€and€could€not€explain€why€heÐ ° Ðomitted€this€usual€check.€(òòPeople€v.€Nabong,€supra.óó,€115€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€Supp.€2„4.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àUnder€these€circumstances,€the€court€concluded€that€the€officer€lacked€aÐ ° Ðparticularized€reasonable€suspicion€for€the€traffic€stop.€He€could€not€rely€on€his€personalÐ ° Ðexperience€ð!ð€that€about€50€percent€of€temporary€permits€are€invalid€ð!ð€because€there€wasÐ °  Ðnothing€about€the€circumstances€reasonably€suggesting€that€the€òòparticularóó€sticker€placed€onÐ °  Ðthe€defendantððs€car€was€not€valid.€Moreover,€the€officer€had€made€no€effort€to€ascertain€ifÐ °  Ðthis€temporary€permit€was€valid€by€checking€with€his€dispatcher.€He€should€have€taken€thisÐ °  Ðstep€before€intruding€upon€appellantððs€freedom.€(òòPeople€v.€Nabong,€supra.óó,€at€4„5.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àIn€2005,€the€California€Supreme€Court€granted€review€on€this€issue€in€òòPeople€v.Ð °  ÐBrendlinóó€and€òòPeople€v.€Saundersóó:€The€principle€issue€in€both€cases€was€whether€aÐ °  Ðpassenger€is€necessarily€detained€when€an€officer€initiates€a€traffic€stop€and€pulls€theÐ °  Ðvehicle€over.€(See€Section€IC€below.)€However,€the€Court€also€granted€review€on€a€secondÐ ° Ðquestion:€May€a€car€that€has€expired€registration€tags,€but€also€has€a€temporary€registrationÐ ° Ðpermit,€be€legally€stopped€to€investigate€the€validity€of€the€temporary€permit?Ð ° ÐÌà  àUnfortunately,€the€Supreme€Court€did€not€really€resolve€this€issue€in€either€case.€InÐ ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Brendlinóó€(2006)€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€1107,€1114,€the€Attorney€General€conceded€that€theÐ ° Ðofficer€who€stopped€the€vehicle€lacked€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€carððs€registration€wasÐ ° Ðexpired,€and€thus€the€traffic€stop€was€illegal.€Prior€to€pulling€over€the€car,€the€officer€hadÐ ° Ðseen€both€expired€registration€tabs€and€an€unexpired€temporary€operating€permit€taped€toÐ ° Ðthe€vehicleððs€rear€window.€He€had€also€phoned€dispatch€and€received€radio€confirmationÐ ° Ðthat€the€carððs€registration€had€expired€two€months€earlier,€but€that€a€renewal€applicationÐ ° Ðwas€ð ðin€processðð.€(òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,€supra.óó,€at€1111,€1114.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€òòSaundersóó,òòóó€the€officer€pulled€over€a€truck€that€had€expired€registration€tabs€and€noÐ ° Ðfront€license€plate.€The€officer€could€not€recall€if€he€had€seen€the€temporary€operatingÐ °  Ðpermit€which€was€taped€to€the€truckððs€rear€window.€If€the€temporary€permit€was€valid,€itÐ °! Ðallowed€the€vehicle€to€be€lawfully€operated€through€the€day€of€the€stop.€The€driver€testifiedÐ °" Ðthat€he€had€applied€to€register€the€vehicle€in€his€wifeððs€name€and€had€asked€for€new€licenseÐ °# Ðplates,€but€he€had€not€completed€the€smog€check.€Consequently,€heððd€been€issued€aÐ °$  Ðtemporary€operating€permit€that€he€had€placed€in€the€window.€A€clerk€for€the€DepartmentÐ °%!! Ðof€Motor€Vehicles€testified€regarding€the€legal€effect€of€a€temporary€operating€permit€ð!ðÐ °&"" Ðallowing€the€owner€to€drive€the€vehicle€until€registration€was€completed€„„€but€she€alsoÐ °'## Ðexplained€that€one€would€need€to€read€the€small€print€on€the€permit€(the€license€plateÐ °($$ Ðnumber,€the€VIN€number,€and€the€year€of€issuance)€to€definitively€determine€that€theÐ °)%% Ðpermit€had€been€issued€for€that€particular€vehicle€for€the€current€year.€(òòPeople€v.€Saunders,Ð °*&& Ðsupra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1131„1133.)Ð °+'' Їà  àThe€Supreme€Court€determined€that€the€officer€had€reasonable€suspicion€to€initiateÐ ° Ðthe€traffic€stop€to€investigate€the€missing€license€plate,€if€not€the€expired€registration.€TheÐ ° ÐCourt€noted,€ð ð[w]e€have€not€yet€decided€whether€an€officer€may€stop€a€vehicle€that€has€anÐ ° Ðexpired€registration€tab€but€also€displays€a€temporary€operating€permit.ðð€(òòPeople€v.Ð ° ÐSaunders,€supra.óó,€at€1135.)€The€Court€acknowledged€that€other€jurisdictions€were€dividedÐ ° Ðon€this€issue,€but€concluded:€ð ðWe€need€not€decide€the€issue,€however,€because€[the€officer]Ð °  Ðalso€noticed€that€the€pickupððs€front€license€plate€was€missingðð€ð!ð€a€legitimate€basis€for€aÐ °  Ðtraffic€stop.€(òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€at€1136.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€held€that€the€officer€could€stop€the€truck€to€ascertain€if€the€temporaryÐ °  Ðoperating€permit€excused€both€the€expired€registration€and€the€missing€plate€even€thoughÐ °  Ðthe€officer€had€not€called€dispatch€to€check€if€the€vehicle€ownerððs€registration€andÐ °  Ðapplication€for€a€license€plate€was€in€process.€A€radio€check€would€have€been€futile€in€thisÐ °  Ðcase€because,€as€the€DMV€clerk€testified,€the€temporary€permit€had€not€been€entered€intoÐ °  Ðthe€database.€Also,€the€officer€had€to€stop€the€car€and€read€the€fine€print€to€verify€theÐ ° Ðpermitððs€validity€and€scope.€Thus,€the€circumstances€in€this€case€were€distinguishable€fromÐ ° Ðboth€òòBrendlinóó€and€òòNabongóó.€(òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€at€1137.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€January€2007,€the€Court€of€Appeal€(Third€Appellate€District)€published€the€firstÐ ° Ðcase€on€this€issue,€after€òòBrendlinóó€and€òòSaundersóó.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Hernandezóó€(January€11,Ð ° Ð2007)€07€C.D.O.S.€445.)€In€òòHernandezóó,€the€officer€stopped€the€defendantððs€truck€becauseÐ ° Ðit€had€no€license€plates.€However,€before€the€stop,€the€officer€had€seen€a€temporaryÐ ° Ðoperating€permit€properly€placed€in€the€truckððs€rear€window.€The€officer€knew€thatÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permits€are€provided€by€the€DMV€pending€issuance€of€license€platesÐ ° Ðto€show€that€all€fees€have€been€paid.€Nevertheless,€the€officer€pulled€the€truck€overÐ ° Ðbecause,€in€his€experience,€ð ðtemporary€operating€permits€are€very€often€forgedðð.€(òòPeople€v.Ð ° ÐHernandez,€supraóó.)Ð ° Ðà  àÌà  àThe€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€the€traffic€stop€was€illegal€because€the€temporaryÐ °  Ðpermit,€excusing€the€missing€license€plates,€was€lawfully€placed,€valid€on€its€face€and€seenÐ °! Ðby€the€officer€prior€to€pulling€the€car€over.€Relying€on€òòNabongóó,€supra.,€115€Cal.€App.€4òòthóóÐ °" ÐSupp.€At€1„4,€òòHernandezóó€held€that€the€officerððs€personal€experience€that€temporary€permitsÐ °# Ðare€ð ðvery€oftenðð€forged€did€not€justify€the€stop€in€this€case.€Like€the€officer€in€òòNabongóó,€theÐ °$  Ðofficer€in€òòHernandezóó€had€not€testified€to€any€facts€regarding€the€particular€permit€on€theÐ °%!! Ðdefendantððs€car€which€led€him€to€reasonably€suspect€that€it€was€forged€or€invalid.€If€theÐ °&"" Ðstop€of€the€defendantððs€car€was€justified,€then€an€officer€could€ð ðreasonably€suspectðð€thatÐ °'## Ðany€observed€temporary€operating€permit€was€invalid.€(See€People€v.€Hernandez,€supra..)Ð °($$ ÐPlacing€a€temporary€operating€permit€on€oneððs€car,€to€explain€the€excused€absence€ofÐ °)%% Ðcurrent€registration€tabs€or€license€plates,€would€be€a€meaningless€act,€as€one€could€beÐ °*&& Ðstopped€at€any€time€by€an€officer€who€doubted€the€validity€of€any€Ô_Ôpermit.Ð °+'' Їà  àòòHernandezóó€distinguished€òòSaundersóó€because€Defendant€Saunders€was€missing€onlyÐ ° Ðone€license€plate€and€had€expired€registration€tabs.€Thus,€it€was€impossible€to€tell,€withoutÐ ° Ðstopping€the€car,€whether€the€temporary€permit€excused€the€missing€plate,€the€expiredÐ ° Ðregistration,€or€both€possible€violations.€(òòPeople€v.€Hernandez,€supraóó.)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€rules€in€this€area€are€far€from€clear,€it€appears€that€one€can€challengeÐ °  Ðthe€validity€of€a€traffic€stop€when€the€officer€observed€both€expired€registration€tags€(orÐ °  Ðmissing€license€plates)€and€a€temporary€operating€permit€in€the€following€circumstances:Ð °  Ð1)the€officer€called€dispatch€to€verify€the€registration,€or€he€could€have€easily€checked€withÐ °  Ðdispatch€but€unreasonably€failed€to€do€so;€or€2)the€officer€testified€that€he€presumes€that€allÐ °  Ðtemporary€operating€permits€are€invalid,€but€gave€no€reason€for€suspecting€invalidity€inÐ °  Ðthis€particular€case.€Ð °  ÐÌà  àSometimes€an€officer€will€stop€a€vehicle€because€it€has€expired€registration€tabs€orÐ °  Ðmissing€license€plates,€and€the€officer€does€not€see€a€valid€temporary€operating€permit€inÐ ° Ðthe€window.€Alternatively,€the€officer€sees€the€permit€but€cannot€decipher€the€expirationÐ ° Ðdate€as€he€drives€behind€the€vehicle.€The€officer€stops€the€car€but€ð!ð€as€the€officerÐ ° Ðapproaches€the€stopped€vehicle€on€foot€ð!ð€he€sees€that€there€is€a€valid€temporary€operatingÐ ° Ðpermit€posted€in€the€window.€(See€òòUnited€States€v.€McSwainóó€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1994)€29€F.3d€558.)Ð ° ÐWhat€can€the€officer€do€then?€A€discussion€of€òòMcSwainóó,€and€other€cases€presenting€thisÐ ° Ðissue€can€be€found€below,€in€Section€II€E.Ð ° ÐÌà0  àò òC.€WHO€MAY€CHALLENGE€THE€INITIATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP?Ð ° ÐONLY€DRIVERS,€NOT€PASSENGERS,€AS€PASSENGERSà0xs#s#àà  à€€€ARE€NOTó óЮþxs#xs# Ðà  àò òUSUALLYó ó€ò òDETAINED€WHEN€AN€OFFICER€PULLS€THE€VEHICLEÐ ¬ü Ðà  àOVER€(THE€òòÔ_ÔBRENDLINÔ_Ô„SAUNDERSóó€RULE)ó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àð ðThe€proponent€of€a€motion€to€suppress€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€his€ownÐ ®þ ÐFourth€Amendment€rights€were€violated€by€the€challenged€search€and€seizure.ðð€(òòRakas€v.Ð ® þ ÐIllinoisóó€(1978)€439€U.S.€128,€131,€fn.€1.)€Consequently,€in€order€to€challenge€the€initiationÐ ®!þ Ðof€the€traffic€stop€ð!ð€i.e.€by€arguing€that€the€officer€had€no€legal€right€to€pull€the€car€over€ð!ðÐ ®"þ Ðthe€individual€who€seeks€to€suppress€evidence€must€have€been€personally€detained€withinÐ ®#þ Ðthe€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment.Ð ®$þ  Їà0  àòòò ò1.€Drivers€are€detained€at€the€inception€of€the€traffic€stopаs#s# Ðó óóóÌà  àIt€is€well€settled€that€the€driver€is€detained€when€the€vehicle€is€stopped€by€theÐ ªú Ðpolice;€she€has€submitted€to€the€officerððs€show€of€authority€and€would€not€reasonablyÐ ªú Ðbelieve€she€was€free€to€leave€or€otherwise€terminate€the€encounter.€(òòPeople€v.€BrendlinóóÐ ªú Ð(2006)€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€1107,€1114,€1115„1116;€òòUnited€States€v.€Whren,€supra.óó,€517€U.S.€atÐ ª ú Ð809„810.)€Thus,€the€driver€can€challenge€the€police€officerððs€right€to€initiate€the€traffic€stopÐ ª ú Ðand€everything€that€flows€from€that€stop€(e.g.€consent€to€search).€But€what€about€theÐ ª ú Ðpassenger?€Is€the€passenger€also€detained€when€the€police€officer€pulls€the€car€over?€AfterÐ ª ú Ðall,€the€passengerððs€freedom€of€movement€is€curtailed€along€with€the€driverððs.Ð ª ú  ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€never€expressly€addressed€this€issue,Ð ªú  Ða€majority€of€courts,€including€several€federal€jurisdictions,€have€embraced€a€per€se€ruleÐ ªú  Ðthat€the€passenger€is€seized€at€the€moment€when€the€driver€submits€to€the€police€officerððsÐ ªú  Ðshow€of€authority.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,€supraóó.,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1114„1115.)€Until€lastÐ ªú  Ðyear,€the€California€Courts€of€Appeal€were€divided€on€the€question.€(òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,Ð ªú Ðsupraóó.,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1114„1115.)Ð ªú ÐÌà  àòòò ò2.€The€California€Supreme€Court€decides€passengers€are€not€detained€when€the€€€€€Ð ªú Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€officer€pulls€the€car€overó óóóÐ ¤ô ÐÌà  àIn€2006,€the€California€Supreme€Court€held€that€passengers€are€not€automatically€orÐ žî Ðnecessarily€detained€at€the€initiation€of€the€traffic€stop:€ð ð[T]he€passenger,€whose€progressÐ žî Ðis€momentarily€stopped€as€a€practical€matter,€is€not€seized€as€a€constitutional€matter€in€theÐ žî Ðabsence€of€additional€circumstances€that€would€indicate€to€a€reasonable€person€that€he€orÐ žî Ðshe€was€the€subject€of€the€peace€officerððs€investigation€or€show€of€authority.ðð€(òòPeople€v.Ð žî ÐBrendlinóó,€òòsupra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1111;€see€also€òòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€atÐ žî Ð1134.)׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€The€Supreme€Court€reasoned€that€when€the€vehicle€is€stopped,€the€passenger€is€notÐ žî Ðsubject€to€the€same€restraint€as€the€driver.€During€the€typical€traffic€stop,€while€the€policeÐ ž î Ðofficer€approaches€and€questions€the€driver,€the€passenger€is€a€ð ðmere€observerðð€who€canÐ ž!î Ðdo€anything€she€wishes.€She€can€ignore€the€police.€She€can€leave€the€vehicle€and€walkÐ ž"î Ðaway.€Or€she€can€wait€until€the€investigation€of€the€driver€is€completed.€It€is€this€elementÐ ž#î Ðof€purported€choice€that€distinguishes€the€passengerððs€circumstances€from€the€driverððs.Ð ž$î  Ð(òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,€supra.óó,€at€1117„€1119.)Ð ž%î ! ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àConsequently,€unless€the€officer€effecting€the€stop€says€or€does€something€to€theÐ ° Ðpassenger€ð!ð€at€the€time€he€pulls€the€car€over€„„€which€reasonably€makes€her€believe€thatÐ ° Ðshe€is€the€focus€of€the€officerððs€investigation€or€show€of€authority,€the€passenger€is€notÐ ° Ðdetained,€and€she€cannot€challenge€the€legality€of€the€traffic€stop.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,Ð ° Ðsupra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1111,€1116,€1122;€òòPeople€v.€Saundersóó,€supra.,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1134.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àSo€what€are€the€ð ðadditional€circumstancesðð,€or€police€officerððs€actions,€that€wouldÐ °  Ðindicate€to€a€reasonable€passenger€that€she€is€the€subject€of€the€show€of€authority€ð!ð€i.e.€thatÐ °  Ðthe€officer€is€pulling€the€car€over€to€investigate€the€passenger?€€The€Court,€in€òòBrendlinóó,€didÐ °  Ðnot€really€answer€this€question.€However,€the€Court€implied€that€a€passenger€would€beÐ °  Ðdetained€if€the€officer€ð!ð€upon€pulling€over€the€vehicle€„„€went€directly€to€the€passengerððsÐ °  Ðside,€blocked€her€exit,€brandished€a€weapon,€or€made€intimidating€movements€towards€theÐ °  Ðpassenger.€(òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,€supraóó.,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1118.)€Note€that€these€circumstancesÐ °  Ðare€unlikely€to€occur€in€the€typical€case€where€the€car€is€stopped€because€of€the€driverððsÐ °  ÐVehicle€Code€violation.€Ð ° ÐÌà0  àòòò ò3.€The€passenger€is€detained€during€the€traffic€stop€if€ordered€out€of€the€vehicleó óóóаs#s# ÐÌà  àIn€òòSaundersóó,€the€Court€suggested€that€even€if€a€passenger€is€not€seized€at€the€outsetÐ ªú Ðof€the€traffic€stop,€she€may€be€detained€òòduringóó€the€traffic€stop€if€the€officer€orders€theÐ ªú Ðpassenger€to€do€something.€And€if€the€officerððs€authority€to€make€this€demand€derivesÐ ªú Ðfrom€the€traffic€stop€itself,€then€the€passenger€can€challenge€the€legality€of€the€stop.€(SeeÐ ªú ÐòòPeople€v.€Saunders,€supra.óó,€38€Cal.€4òòthóó€at€1134.)€Ð ªú ÐÌà  àSpecifically,€in€òòSaundersóó,€the€Court€held€that€a€passenger€is€ð ðunquestionablyÐ ªú Ðseizedðð€when€the€officer€orders€the€passenger€out€of€the€vehicle.€The€United€StatesÐ ªú ÐSupreme€Court,€in€òòMaryland€v.€Wilsonóó€(1997)€519€U.S.€408,€410,€authorized€a€policeÐ ªú Ðofficer€to€order€a€passenger€to€exit€the€vehicle€òòas€a€matter€of€courseóó€during€a€òòlawfulóó€trafficÐ ªú Ðstop€for€officer€safety€reasons.€Therefore,€when€a€passenger€was€ordered€out€of€a€car,€andÐ ª ú Ðconsequently€detained,€the€prosecution€must€demonstrate€that€the€underlying€traffic€stopÐ ª!ú Ðwas€lawful€ð!ð€i.e.€justified€by€reasonable€suspicion€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violation.€If€theÐ ª"ú Ðpassenger€was€told€to€get€out€of€the€vehicle€during€the€traffic€stop,€she€can€challenge€theÐ ª#ú Ðinitiation€of€the€stop€and€move€to€suppress€any€evidence€seized€during€the€illicit€stop.Ð ª$ú  ÐÌà  àCan€a€passenger€also€challenge€the€legality€of€the€traffic€stop€if€the€police€officerÐ ª&ú!" Ðorders€her€to€stay€in€the€vehicle€during€the€stop?€There€is€certainly€a€strong€argument,€afterÐ ª'ú"# ÐòòSaundersóó,€that€the€officer€detains€the€passenger€when€she€orders€him€to€stay€in€the€car.€InÐ ª(ú#$ ÐòòPeople€v.€Castellonóó€(1999)€76€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€1369,€the€defendant€was€the€passenger€in€a€carÐ ª)ú$% Ðstopped€for€expired€registration.€As€the€police€officer€approached€the€vehicle,€he€saw€theÐ ª*ú%& Ðdefendant„passenger€start€to€get€out€of€the€car.€The€officer€ordered€the€defendant€to€getÐ ª+ú&' Ðback€into€the€car,€and€then€ordered€him€to€stop€when€he€started€to€walk€away;€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€complied.€The€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€the€defendant€was€detained€when€theÐ ° Ðofficer€ordered€him€to€remain€in€the€car€and€the€defendant€stopped€in€response€to€thisÐ ° Ðdemand.€Relying€on€the€rule€of€òòMaryland€v.€Wilsonóó€(during€a€traffic€stop,€the€officer€canÐ ° Ðorder€the€passenger€to€exit€from€the€vehicle€for€officer€safety),€òòCastellonóó€held€that€theÐ ° Ðofficer€can€similarly€order€the€passenger€to€remain€in€the€car:€ð ð[W]hether€the€passenger€isÐ °  Ðordered€to€stay€in€the€car€or€get€out€of€the€vehicle€is€a€distinction€without€a€difference.ððÐ °  Ð(òòPeople€v.€Castellon,€supra.óó,€at€1374„1375.)€The€officer€does€not€need€to€reasonablyÐ °  Ðsuspect€the€passenger€of€criminal€activity.€His€authority€to€order€the€passenger€to€stay€inÐ °  Ðthe€car€derives€from€the€lawful€traffic€stop.Ð °  ÐÌà  àWhat€if,€during€the€traffic€stop,€the€officer€asks€the€passenger€to€provideÐ °  Ðidentification,€or€inquires€whether€the€passenger€is€on€parole?€Would€the€passenger€then€beÐ °  Ðdetained?€In€òòBrendlinóó,€the€Court€declined€to€decide€this€question.€(òòPeople€v.€Brendlin,Ð °  Ðsupra.óó,òòóó€at€1123.)€At€least€one€unpublished€First€District€case€has€held€that€a€mere€requestÐ ° Ðfor€the€passengerððs€identification€and€parole€status€does€not€constitute€a€detention.Ð ° Ðð ð[I]nterrogation€relating€to€oneððs€identity€or€a€request€for€identification€by€the€police€doesÐ ° Ðnot€constitute€a€Fourth€Amendment€seizure.ðð€(òòPeople€v.€Lopezóó€(1989)€212€Cal.€App.€3dÐ ° Ð289,€291,€quoting€òòINS€v.€Delgadoóó€(1984)€466€U.S.€210,€216.)€However,€if€the€officer€keptÐ ° Ðthe€passengerððs€driverððs€license€to€run€a€warrant€check,€one€might€have€a€viable€argumentÐ ° Ðthat€the€passenger€was€detained.€(See€òòFlorida€v.€Royer,€supra.óó,€460€U.S.€at€501„503;Ð ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Castenadaóó€(1995)€35€Cal.€4òòthóó€1222,€1227.)Ð  ° Ðò òÔ‡¼¾° »ˆŠÌ?ÔÓ  ÓII.€THE€SCOPE€AND€DURATION€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPó óà @x àÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆ »¼¾°]î#ÔÐ ° ÐÓ|îÓÌà  àAssume€that€the€law€enforcement€officer€has€lawfully€pulled€the€car€over€andÐ Ä Ðdetained€the€driver€to€investigate€the€observed€or€suspected€Vehicle€Code€violation.€WhatÐ Ä Ðcan€the€officer€ask€and€do€during€the€traffic€stop?€And€how€long€can€the€officer€take€toÐ Ä Ðperform€these€permissible€functions?Ð Ä  ÐÌà  àAs€explained€below€„„€under€the€modern€rule€„„€the€officer€can€ask€and€do€almostÐ Ä  Ðanything,€as€long€as€she€doesnððt€take€too€long.€(See€.e.g.€òòPeople€v.€Brownóó€(1998)€62€Cal.Ð Ä  ÐApp.€4th€493.)€Specifically,€the€officer€can€ask€for€consent€to€search€during€the€legitimateÐ Ä   Ðtraffic€stop.€(òòPeople€v.€Brown,€supra.óó,€at€498„499;€òòPeople€v.€Gallardoóó€(1005)€130€Cal.Ð Ä  ÐApp.€4òòthóó€234,€238„239.)€However€she€cannot€search€the€car,€as€a€matter€of€course,€withoutÐ Ä  Ðconsent€or€other€independent€justification.€(òòKnowles€v.€Iowaóó€(1998)€525€U.S.€113.)Ð Ä  ÐÌà  àWhy€challenge€the€scope€or€duration€of€the€traffic€stop?€As€with€challenges€to€theÐ Ä Ðinitiation€of€the€stop,€one€would€argue€that€the€officer€exceeded€the€lawful€scope€orÐ Ä Ðduration€in€order€to€challenge€a€search€or€seizure€that€occurred€during€the€traffic€stop.ûÿÿdûÐ Ä ÐüÿÿdüÌà  àò òA.€THE€BASIC€LAW€GOVERNING€THE€OFFICERððS€CONDUCT€DURINGÐ Ä Ðà  àTHE€TRAFFIC€STOPó óÐ Â ÐÌà  àThe€stop€of€a€vehicle€by€the€police€and€the€consequent€detention€of€the€driverÐ À Ðconstitutes€a€Fourth€Amendment€seizure.€(òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,€òòsupraóó.,€517€U.S.€at€809„Ð À Ð810.)€Like€all€detentions,€a€traffic€stop€is€a€brief€and€limited€seizure€that€must€be€ð ðjustifiedÐ À Ðat€its€inceptionðð€and€ð ðreasonably€related€in€scope€to€the€circumstances€which€justified€theÐ À Ðinterference€in€the€first€placeðð.€(òòTerry€v.€Ohio€óó(1968)€392€U.S.€1,€20;€òòBerkemer€v.€McCartyóóÐ À Ð(1984)€468€U.S.€420,€439;òò€People€v.€Bell,€supra.,€óó43€Cal.App.4th€at€760„61;€òòUnited€StatesÐ À Ðv.€Woodóó€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1997)€106€F.3d€942,€945;€òòPeople€v.€Gallardo,€supra.,óó130€Cal.€App.€4òòthóóÐ À Ðat€238.)€A€traffic€stop€is€justified€at€its€inception€when€the€police€observe€or€reasonablyÐ À  Ðsuspect€a€Vehicle€Code€violation.€The€scope€of€the€ensuing€detention€is€limited€by€thisÐ À! Ðjustification.Ð À" ÐÌà  àConsequently,€after€initiating€a€traffic€stop,€the€police€officer€can€briefly€detain€theÐ À$  Ðdriver€while€she€investigates€the€Vehicle€Code€violation€and€expeditiously€performs€theÐ À%!! Ðduties€incident€to€the€citation€process.€(òòPeople€v.€McGaughran€óó(1979)€25€Cal.3d€577,€584;Ð À&"" ÐòòPeople€v.€Mirandaóó€(1993)€17€Cal.App.4th€917,€926„27;€òòUnited€States€v.€Bloomfieldóó€(8òòthóóÐ À'## ÐCir.€1994)€40€F.3d€910,€915.)€These€traditional€duties€include:€1)examining€the€motoristððsÐ À($$ Ðdriverððs€license,€vehicle€registration€and€proof€of€insurance;€2)discussing€the€violationÐ À)%% Ðwith€the€motorist€and€listening€to€any€explanation;€3)running€any€necessary€computerÐ À*&& Ðchecks€(e.g.€warrant€and€license€checks);€4)inquiring€about€the€motoristððs€travel€plans;€andÐ À+'' Ð5)writing€out€a€citation€or€issuing€a€warning.€(See€òòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€at€584,Ð ° Ð586;€òòPeople€v.€Miranda,€supraóó.,€at€927;€òòUnited€States€v.€Bloomfield,€supraóó.,€at€915.)€TheÐ ° Ðofficer€can€detain€the€driver€at€the€scene€for€the€period€of€time€necessary€to€discharge€theseÐ ° Ðduties.€(òòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€at€584.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àDuring€a€routine€traffic€stop,€the€police€€may€order€the€driver€and€passengers€to€exitÐ °  Ðthe€vehicle.€(òòPennsylvania€v.€Mimmsóó€(1977)€436€U.S.€106,€110„111€[driver];€òòMaryland€v.Ð °  ÐWilsonóó€(1997)€519€U.S.€408,€415€[passengers])€But€after€ordering€a€driver€or€passenger€outÐ °  Ðof€the€vehicle,€the€police€officer€cannot€pat„search€him€for€weapons€as€a€matter€of€routine;Ð °  Ðadditional€circumstances€must€support€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€individual€is€armed.Ð °  Ð(See€òòUnited€States€v.€Brownóó€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1999)€188€F.3d€860,€864;€òòPeople€v.€Medinaóó€(2003)Ð °  Ð110€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€171,€176„177;€òòPennsylvania€v.€Mimms,€supra.óó,€at€110,€n.€5)Ð °  ÐÌà  àAlthough€both€actions€are€justified€by€concerns€for€officer€safety,€a€weapons€frisk€isÐ °  Ðan€additional€intrusion€that€does€not€automatically€follow€a€legal€detention€or€lawfulÐ ° Ðrequest€to€exit€the€vehicle€during€a€traffic€stop.€(See€òòPennsylvania€v.€Mimms,€supraóó.,€atÐ ° Ð111€[unlike€a€òòTerryóó€frisk,€removing€the€driver€from€the€car€is€a€de€minimus€intrusion];Ð ° ÐòòSibron€v.€New€Yorkóó€(1968)€392€U.S.€40,€64€[A€lawful€weapons€frisk€doesnððt€always€flowÐ ° Ðfrom€a€justified€detention].)€The€purpose€of€ordering€the€occupants€out€of€a€car,€during€aÐ ° Ðtraffic€stop,€is€to€protect€officer€safety.€Once€outside,€they€are€denied€access€to€anyÐ ° Ðweapons€that€might€be€concealed€in€the€vehicle.€(òòMaryland€v.€Wilson,€supraóó.,€at€414.)€IfÐ ° Ðthe€occupants€are€out€of€the€car,€the€officer€can€look€for€bulges,€concealing€clothing,€orÐ ° Ðfurtive€gestures€that€reasonably€suggest€weapons€possession.€(òòPennsylvania€v.€Mimmsóó,Ð ° Ðòòsupraóó.,€at€110„112€[holding€that€officer€was€justified€in€pat„searching€the€driver€as€heÐ ° Ðnoticed€a€large€bulge,€resembling€a€weapon,€in€the€driverððs€jacket€after€removing€him€fromÐ ° Ðthe€car].)€Unless€observations€made€by€the€officer€„„€before€or€after€he€removes€theÐ ° Ðoccupant€from€the€vehicle€„„€reasonably€suggest€that€the€particular€occupant€is€armed,€aÐ ° Ðpat„search€for€weapons€is€not€justified.€(See€òòUnited€States€v.€Brown,€supraóó.,€at€864„865.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àò òB.€LIMITS€ON€THE€SCOPE€OF€THE€TRAFFIC€STOPó óÐ °! ÐÌà  àYears€ago,€there€used€to€be€arguable€limitations€on€the€ð ðscopeðð€of€the€lawful€trafficÐ ®#þ Ðdetention.€We€were€able€to€assert€that€during€a€traffic€stop,€the€officer€could€not€askÐ ®$þ  Ðquestions€about€matters€unrelated€to€the€Vehicle€Code€violation€(e.g.€ð ðAre€you€carryingÐ ®%þ ! Ðdrugs?ðð).€And€the€officer€could€not€ask€for€consent€to€search€during€the€traffic€stop.€(See,Ð ®&þ!" Ðe.g.€òòPeople€v.€Lingoóó€(1970)€3€Cal.€3d€661;€òòPeople€v.€Graceóó€(1973)€32€Cal.€App.€3d€447,Ð ®'þ"# ÐòòPeople€v.€Lusardióó€(1991)€228€Cal.€App.€3d€Supp€1.)€However,€this€ð ðbeyond€the€scope€ofÐ ®(þ#$ Ðthe€traffic€stopðð€argument€has€gone€the€same€way€as€the€pretext€search€doctrine.€There€areÐ ®)þ$% Ðnow€virtually€no€limits€on€what€the€officer€can€ask€and€do€during€the€traffic€stop.€The€onlyÐ ®*þ%& Ðthing€the€officer€canððt€do€is€search€the€vehicle€without€consent€or€independent€justification.Ð ®+þ&' Ð(See€òòKnowles€v.€Iowaóó,€òòsupraóó.,€525€U.S.€at€113€[discussed€in€section€IIIA].)Ð ° ÐÌà  àòòThe€modern€rule,€expressed€in€òòPeople€v.€Brown,€supra.,óó€62€Cal.€App.€3d€at€493,Ð ° ÐòòPeople€v.€Gallardoóó,€òòsupra.óó,€130€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€238,€€òòPeople€v.€Bell,€supra.,€óó43€Cal.€App.Ð ° Ð4òòthóó€754,€and€òòUnited€States€v.€Shabazzóó€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1993)€993€F.2d€431€is€as€follows:€During€theÐ ° Ðtraffic€detention,€the€officer€can€do€anything€(e.g.€run€a€warrant€check)€and€ask€about€anyÐ °  Ðtopic€(e.g.€drugs,€probation€status)€so€long€as€her€conduct€and€questions€ð ðdo€not€prolongÐ °  Ðthe€stop€beyond€the€time€it€would€otherwise€takeðð.€(òòPeople€v.€Brown,€supra.óó,€at€498.)€óóÐ °  ÐÌà  àQuestioning€during€the€routine€traffic€stop€on€subjects€unrelated€to€the€VehicleÐ °  ÐCode€violation€does€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment.€While€the€driver€is€under€noÐ °  Ðobligation€to€answer€unrelated€questions,€the€Constitution€does€not€prohibit€lawÐ °  Ðenforcement€officers€from€asking.€(òòPeople€v.€Brown,€supra.óó,€at€499.)€òòóóSpecifically,€theÐ °  Ðofficer€can€ask€for€consent€to€search€during€the€traffic€stop€even€if€he€lack€a€reasonableÐ °  Ðsuspicion€that€the€driver€is€engaged€in€wrongdoing€or€has€contraband€in€his€vehicle.Ð ° Ð(òòPeople€v.€Gallardo,€supra.óó,€130€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€€at€238„239.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àConsequently,€when€the€officer€asked€the€driver€if€he€has€drugs€in€the€car€or€askedÐ ° Ðfor€permission€to€search,€one€can€no€longer€argue€that€those€questions€were€improper€orÐ ° Ðthat€the€officer€€exceeded€the€scope€of€a€lawful€traffic€stop.€If,€in€response€to€thoseÐ ° Ðquestions,€the€driver€admitted€that€he€had€drugs€in€the€car,€or€consented€to€the€search,€oneÐ ° Ðcannot€argue€that€the€subsequent€search€was€illegal.Ð ° ÐÌà  àò òC.€€LIMITS€ON€HOW€LONG€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP€CAN€TAKEó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àIn€òòBrownóó€and€òòGallardoóó,€the€court€held€that€the€officer€can€ask€or€do€anything€duringÐ ®þ Ðthe€traffic€stop€so€long€as€these€ð ðinvestigative€activities€beyond€the€original€purpose€of€theÐ ®þ Ðstop...€do€not€prolong€the€stop€beyond€the€time€it€would€otherwise€takeðð.€(òòPeople€v.€Brown,Ð ®þ Ðsupra.óó,€62€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€498;€òòPeople€v.€Gallardo,€supra.óó,€130€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€238.)Ð ® þ ÐThese€modern€cases€imply€the€continuing€viability€of€a€ð ðprolonged€traffic€stopðð€argumentÐ ®!þ Ðð!ð€i.e.€that€an€initially€legitimate€traffic€stop€can€become€illegal€if€the€officer€takes€longerÐ ®"þ Ðthan€reasonably€necessary€to€perform€the€duties€flowing€from€the€violation€and€lacksÐ ®#þ Ðreasonable€cause€for€doing€so.€(See€òòPeople€v.€McGaughranóó,€supra.,€25€Cal.€3d€at€584„587;Ð ®$þ  ÐòòWilliams€v.€Superior€Courtóó€(1985)€168€Cal.€App.€3d€349)€The€United€States€SupremeÐ ®%þ ! ÐCourt€recently€confirmed€the€continuing€validity€of€the€prolonged€traffic€stop€doctrine:€ð ðAÐ ®&þ!" Ðseizure€that€is€justified€solely€by€the€interest€in€issuing€a€warning€ticket€to€the€driver€canÐ ®'þ"# Ðâ âbecome€unlawful€if€it€is€prolonged€beyond€the€time€reasonably€required€to€complete€thatÐ ®(þ#$ Ðmissionðð.€(òòIllinois€v.€Caballesóó€(2005)€543€U.S.€405,€407.)׃*×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ° Ðâ âÌà  àIf€additional€unrelated€questioning,€a€warrant€check,€or€a€wait€for€back„up€officersÐ ° Ðor€a€drug„detection€dog€prolongs€the€stop€beyond€the€time€it€should€reasonably€take,€youÐ ° Ðmight€have€an€argument€that€the€traffic€stop€was€unduly€prolonged.€In€thoseÐ ° Ðcircumstances,€you€could€argue€that€the€officer€needed€reasonable€suspicion€of€criminalÐ °  Ðactivity€(aside€from€the€Vehicle€Code€violation)€to€prolong€the€driverððs€detention.€€(SeeÐ °  ÐòòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€25€Cal.€3d€at€587„588.)€If€the€traffic€stop€was€prolongedÐ °  Ðfor€a€considerable€amount€of€time€(e.g.€more€than€one€hour),€you€might€be€able€to€argueÐ °  Ðthat€the€unreasonably€long€detention€amounted€to€a€de€facto€arrest€for€which€the€officerÐ °  Ðneeded€probable€cause.€(See€òòPeople€v.€Gomezóó€(2004)€117€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€531,€538.)Ð °  ÐIf€the€officer€lacked€reasonable€suspicion€or€probable€cause€for€the€prolonged€stop,€youÐ °  Ðcould€challenge€a€search€that€occurs€during€the€illegally€extended€detention.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐÌà  àòòExperience€and€a€review€of€the€case€law€shows€that€there€are€substantial€obstaclesÐ ° Ðto€success€with€a€prolonged€detention€argumentóó.€First,€itððs€very€difficult€to€prove€that€theÐ ° Ðtraffic€stop€was€unduly€prolonged.€How€long€is€too€long?€The€courts€have€refused€to€set€aÐ ° Ðtime€limit€(e.g.€ten€minutes,€fifteen€minutes).€Instead,€each€case€must€be€decided€on€itsÐ ° Ðown€facts.€(See€òòWilliams€v.€Superior€Court,€supra.óó,€168€Cal.€App.€3d€at€358.)€A€prolongedÐ ° Ðtraffic€stop€argument€will€not€be€viable€unless€the€driverððs€detention€lasted€longer€than€20„Ð ° Ð30€minutes,€or€there€were€unusual€circumstances.€Ð ° ÐÌà  àSecond,€itððs€usually€not€that€difficult€for€the€government€to€establish€that€the€officerÐ ° Ðhad€reasonable€suspicion€or€probable€cause€of€criminal€activity,€to€justify€the€prolongedÐ ° Ðdetention.€(See,€e.g.€òòPeople€v.€Russellóó€(2000)€81€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€96.)€Finally,€the€recent€caseÐ ° Ðof€òòPeople€v.€Gomezóó€suggests€a€further€obstacle€that€could€preclude€a€prolonged€traffic€stopÐ °  Ðargument€in€most€cases.Ð °  ÐÌà  àòòPeople€v.€Gomezóó€demonstrates€the€effect€of€recent€Supreme€Court€rulings€on€aÐ °  Ðdefendantððs€ability€to€challenge€a€traffic€stop€and€a€subsequent€car€search.€In€that€case,Ð °  Ðpolice€officers€gathered€evidence€suggesting€that€drugs€were€being€transported€from€aÐ °  Ðparticular€residence.€For€some€undisclosed€reason,€the€investigating€officers€did€not€seek€aÐ °  Ðsearch€warrant€for€the€residence.€Instead,€they€radioed€patrol€officers€and€asked€them€toÐ °  Ðconduct€traffic€stops€of€vehicles€departing€from€the€suspected€ð ðdrug€dealingðð€house.€TheÐ °  Ðdefendant,€Mr.€Gomez€drove€away€from€the€residence€in€one€of€those€cars€ð!ð€a€brownÐ ° ÐSuburban.€Patrol€Officer€Floren€€received€a€radio€request€to€stop€the€brown€Suburban€forÐ ° Ðany€observable€traffic€violation€and€obtain€the€driverððs€permission€to€search€the€car.Ð ° Ð(òòPeople€v.€Gomez,€supra.,€117€Cal.€App.óó€4òòthóó€at€535„536.)€Officer€Floren€pulled€the€brownÐ ° ÐSuburban€over€because€Defendant€Gomez€was€not€wearing€a€seatbelt.׃-×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€During€the€ensuingÐ ° Ðtraffic€stop,€the€officer€saw€two€large€sealed€boxes€in€the€car,€partially€covered€by€a€tarp.Ð ° ÐHe€suspected€these€boxes€contained€illegal€narcotics.€After€Gomez€refused€to€consent€to€aÐ ° Ðsearch€of€the€car,€the€officer€requested€a€drug€detection€dog.€It€took€60€to€90€minutes€fromÐ ° Ðthe€time€of€the€initial€stop€until€the€dog€arrived€on€the€scene.€The€dog€alerted€to€the€smellÐ ° Ðof€narcotics€in€the€vehicle€by€biting€and€scratching€the€rear€bumper.€Officer€FlorenÐ ° Ðsearched€the€car,€opened€one€of€the€aforementioned€boxes€and€found€tightly€wrappedÐ ° Ðbricks€of€cocaine.€€Officer€Floren€testified€that€only€15€minutes€would€have€been€needed€toÐ ° Ðprepare€a€citation€for€the€seatbelt€violation.€(òòPeople€v.€Gomez,€supra.óó,€at€536.)€However,Ð ° ÐFloren€never€issued€a€citation€for€the€seatbelt€offense.€(òòId.óó€at€539.)Ð ° ÐÌÒeÒà  àGomez€moved€to€suppress€the€cocaine.€He€argued€that€the€60„90€minute€trafficÐ °! Ðdetention€was€unreasonably€prolonged€and€constituted€a€de€facto€arrest,€unsupported€byÐ °" Ðprobable€cause.€The€court€agreed€that€the€detention€was€unduly€prolonged,€but€concludedÐ °# Ðthat€probable€cause€existed€to€support€the€de€facto€arrest.€First,€by€the€time€Officer€FlorenÐ °$  Ðasked€for€the€drug€detection€dog,€the€officers€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€Gomez€wasÐ °%!! Ðengaged€in€drug€trafficking.€This€holding€is€supportable€and€case„specific,€but€it€is€theÐ °&"" Ðcourtððs€second€holding€that€causes€concern.€(òòPeople€v.€Gomez,€supraóó.,€at€538.)€Ð °'## Їà  àSecond,€the€court€noted€that€Officer€Floren€had€probable€cause€to€arrest€Gomez€forÐ ° Ðnot€wearing€a€seatbelt,€and€that€a€custodial€arrest€for€this€minor€offense€would€not€violateÐ ° Ðthe€Fourth€Amendment€„„€even€though€California€law€does€not€authorize€an€arrest€for€suchÐ ° Ða€minor€violation.€(See€òòAtwater€v.€City€of€Lago€Vistaóó€(2001)€532€U.S.€318,€354;€òòPeople€v.Ð ° ÐMcKayóó€(2002)€27€Cal.€4òòthóó€601,€607,€610.)€Because€Officer€Floren€had€probable€cause€toÐ ° Ðarrest€Gomez€for€the€seatbelt€violation,€the€prolonged€detention/de€facto€arrest€€was€lawful.Ð °  Ð(òòPeople€v.€Gomez,€supra.óó,€117€Cal.€App.€4òòthóó€at€538„540.)€Presumably,€under€the€reasoningÐ °  Ðof€òòGomezóó,€any€time€an€officer€stops€a€car€with€probable€cause€to€believe€the€driver€hasÐ °  Ðcommitted€a€Vehicle€Code€violation,€the€officer€could€arrest€the€driver€rather€than€issuing€aÐ °  Ðcitation.€This€could€allow€a€prolonged€detention/de€facto€arrest€in€virtually€every€case,€butÐ °  Ðone€could€argue€that€the€officer€must€choose€to€make€a€custodial€arrest,€rather€than€citingÐ °  Ðthe€driver,€for€a€minor€violation.€(See€òòKnowles€v.€Iowaóó€(1998)€525€U.S.€113.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àò òD.€THE€TRAFFIC€STOP€ENDS€WHEN€THE€OFFICER€ISSUES€AÐ °  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€CITATION€OR€WARNINGó óÐ ®þ  ÐÌà  àGenerally,€the€traffic€stop€is€completed€when€the€officer€issues€a€citation€or€a€verbalÐ ¬ü Ðwarning€for€the€observed€Vehicle€Code€violation€and€then€returns€the€driverððs€paperwork.Ð ¬ü Ð(See€òòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€25€Cal.€3d€at€585„86;€òòUnited€States€v.€Chavez„Ð ¬ü ÐValenzuelaóó€(9òòthóó€Cir.€2001)€268€F.3d€719,€724;€òòUnited€States€v.€Beckóó€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1998)€140€F.3dÐ ¬ü Ð1129,€1134.)€After€the€traffic€stop€is€completed,€the€driver€and€any€passengers€must€beÐ ¬ü Ðð ðreleased€forthwithðð.€(òòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€25€Cal.€3d€at€586.)€ð ðThe€justificationÐ ¬ü Ðfor€the€original€[traffic]€detention€no€longer€supports€its€continuationðð.€(òòUnited€States€v.Ð ¬ü ÐShabazz,€supra.,€óó993€F.2d€at€436.)€Absent€independent€justification,€no€further€detention€isÐ ¬ü Ðpermissible.€(òòPeople€v.€McGaughran,€supra.óó,€at€586;€òòUnited€States€v.€Salzano€óó(10òòthóó€Cir.Ð ¬ü Ð1998)€158€F.3d€1107,€1111.)€The€police€officer€may€continue€the€driverððs€detention€andÐ ¬ü Ðundertake€a€general€crime€investigation€only€if€he€reasonably€suspects€that€the€driver€isÐ ¬ü Ðinvolved€in€criminal€activity€additional€to€the€Vehicle€Code€violation.€(òòPeople€v.Ð ¬ü ÐMcGaughran,€supra.óó,€at€588,€591;€òòóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Mesaóó€(6òòthóó€Cir.€1995)€62€F.3d€159,€162.)Ð ¬ ü Ðð ðThe€government€bears€the€burden€of€proving€the€reasonableness€of€the€officersððÐ ¬!ü Ðsuspicionðð.€(òòUnited€States€v.€Salzanoóó,€òòsupra.óó,€158€F.3d€at€1111.)Ð ¬"ü ÐÌà  àò òE.€WHEN€THE€OFFICER€DISCOVERS€THAT€THERE€IS€IN€FACTÐ ¬$ü  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€NO€VEHICLE€CODE€VIOLATION,€THE€OFFICER€CANNOT€CONTINUEÐ ª%ú ! Ðà  àTHE€TRAFFIC€STOPó óÐ ¨&ø!" ÐÌà  àLetððs€assume€that€an€officer€pulls€over€a€car€because€she€has€observed€a€conditionÐ ¦(ö#$ Ðthat€she€reasonably€believes€violates€the€Vehicle€Code.€The€initiation€of€the€traffic€stop€isÐ ¦)ö$% Ðlegal.€But€as€the€officer€approaches€the€car,€she€realizes€that€no€violation€has€in€fact€beenÐ ¦*ö%& Ðcommitted.€The€legitimate€basis€for€the€traffic€stop€terminates€at€that€moment€of€realization.Ð ¦+ö&' ÐThe€driver€should€be€given€a€brief€explanation€and€sent€on€her€way.€(See€òòUnited€States€v.Ð ° ÐMcSwainóó€(10òòthóó€Cir.€1994)€29€F.3d€558,€561„62;€òòUnited€States€v.€Edgertonóó€(2006)€438€F.3dÐ ° Ð1043,€1051;€òòPeople€v.€Graceóó€(1973)€32€Cal.€App.€3d€44,€450„452.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€òò€McSwainóó,€the€highway€patrol€officer€stopped€the€defendantððs€car€because€it€hadÐ ° Ðno€license€plates,€and€the€officer€could€not€read€the€expiration€date€on€the€temporaryÐ °  Ðregistration€sticker€posted€in€the€carððs€rear€window;€the€date€appeared€to€be€covered€withÐ °  Ðreflective€tape.€As€the€officer€approached€the€stopped€vehicle€on€foot,€he€saw€that€there€wasÐ °  Ðno€reflective€tape.€He€was€able€to€read€the€expiration€date€on€the€temporary€registrationÐ °  Ðsticker€and€could€discern€that€the€sticker€was€valid.€Nevertheless,€the€officer€contacted€theÐ °  Ðdefendant„driver.€He€mentioned€the€sticker,€but€then€requested€defendantððs€driverððs€licenseÐ °  Ðand€registration.€He€discovered€the€defendant€had€no€license€and€a€prior€record,€andÐ °  Ðeventually€obtained€the€defendantððs€consent€to€search€the€car,€ultimately€discovering€drugsÐ °  Ðin€the€trunk.€(òòUnited€States€v.€McSwain,€supra.óó,€29€F.3d€at€559„560.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€conceded€that€the€initial€traffic€stop€was€justified,€but€contended€thatÐ ° Ðthe€officer€had€no€right€to€continue€his€detention€after€the€officer€saw€that€the€sticker€hadÐ ° Ðnot€expired.€The€Tenth€Circuit€agreed.€As€soon€as€the€officer€approached€the€car€andÐ ° Ðobserved€that€the€temporary€sticker€was€valid,€he€had€no€reasonable€basis€for€continuing€theÐ ° Ðstop€and€the€driverððs€detention.€The€reasonable€suspicion€that€justified€the€initial€stop€wasÐ ° Ðð ðcompletely€dispelledðð€before€the€officer€questioned€appellant€and€asked€for€his€license€andÐ ° Ðregistration.€As€a€ð ðmatter€of€courtesyðð,€the€officer€should€have€briefly€explained€the€reasonsÐ ° Ðfor€the€stop€and€then€allowed€the€defendant€driver€to€continue€on€his€way,€without€askingÐ ° Ðfor€his€driverððs€license€and€registration.€(òòUnited€States€v.€McSwain,€supra.óó,€at€560„562.)׃.×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð ° ÐÌ€à  àJust€last€year,€the€Tenth€Circuit€confirmed€its€ruling€in€òòMcSwainóó.€(òòUnited€States€v.Ð ° ÐEdgertonóó,€òòsupra.óó,€438€F.3d€at€1051.)€The€Supreme€Court€of€Colorado,€and€other€stateÐ ° Ðcourts€have€also€adopted€this€rule.€(òòPeople€v.€Redingeróó€(1995)€906€P.2d€81,€85€[listing€casesÐ ° Ðfrom€other€courts€recognizing€ð ðthat€once€the€purpose€of€an€initially€valid€investigatory€stopÐ °  Ðhas€been€satisfied,€any€further€detention€or€questioning€of€the€driver€of€a€vehicle€constitutesÐ °! Ðunreasonable€and€therefore€unlawful€detentionðð].)׃0×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °" Їà  àThe€Second€Circuit€also€approved€the€òòMcSwainóó€rule,€but€nevertheless€upheld€theÐ ° Ðcontinuing€detention€of€vehicle€occupants€after€the€officers€smelled€marijuana.€(òòUnitedÐ ° ÐStates€v.€Jenkinsóó€(2d€Cir.€2006)€452€F.3d€207.)€New€York€City€Police€Officers€pulled€overÐ ° Ðthe€vehicle€because€they€believed€it€did€not€have€any€license€plates.€As€the€officers€exitedÐ ° Ðfrom€the€patrol€car€and€approached€the€stopped€vehicle,€they€could€see€that€it€did€have€aÐ ° Ðvalid€temporary€Delaware€plate€affixed€to€the€rear.€Delaware€law€only€requires€a€rear€plate,Ð °  Ðso€at€this€point,€the€officers€realized€that€there€was€no€violation.€Nevertheless,€the€officersÐ °  Ðapproached€the€vehicle€to€speak€with€the€driver.€As€soon€as€they€got€to€the€car,€two€officersÐ °  Ðsmelled€the€distinctive€odor€of€marijuana.€The€officers€conducted€a€drug€investigation€andÐ °  Ðdiscovered€firearms€in€the€vehicle.€(òòUnited€States€v.€Jenkins,€supraóó.,€at€208„210.)Ð °  ÐÌà  àApplying€the€rule€of€òòMcSwainóó,€the€court€held€that€the€officers€had€the€right€to€initiateÐ °  Ðthe€traffic€stop,€but€the€legitimate€basis€for€a€traffic€detention€ended€when€they€saw€theÐ °  Ðvalid€temporary€plate.€The€officers€who€had€stopped€the€vehicle€based€on€a€ð ðreasonableÐ °  Ðfactual€mistakeðð€had€the€right€to€approach€the€car€and€apprise€the€occupants€of€the€situation.Ð ° ÐThey€did€not€have€to€wave€the€vehicle€on€and€get€back€in€their€patrol€car.€As€soon€as€theÐ ° Ðofficers€approached€the€car,€they€smelled€marijuana,€giving€them€an€independent€basis€forÐ ° Ðdetaining€the€vehicleððs€occupants.€(òòUnited€States€v.€Jenkins,€supraóó.,€at€212„214.)Ð ° ÐÌà  àLook€for€cases€where€the€officer€discovers€the€absence€of€a€Vehicle€Code€violationÐ ° Ðas€he€exits€the€patrol€car€and€approaches€the€stopped€vehicle.€In€addition€to€cases€involvingÐ ° Ðtemporary€operating€permits€and€missing€license€plates,€this€might€happen€in€a€case€whereÐ ° Ðthe€officer€pulled€the€car€over€for€an€object€dangling€from€the€rear€view€mirror.€As€theÐ ° Ðofficer€approached€the€car,€he€recognized,€or€should€have€recognized,€that€the€object€didnððtÐ ° Ðobstruct€the€driverððs€view€through€the€windshield,€as€required€to€violate€the€Vehicle€Code.Ð ° ÐÌà  àIn€other€cases,€the€officer€might€discover€that€there€is€no€Vehicle€Code€violationÐ ° Ðafter€he€has€started€questioning€the€driver.€For€example,€the€officer€stopped€the€car€for€aÐ ° Ðpossible€registration€violation€(i.e.€no€current€sticker€on€the€license€plate),€and€thenÐ °  Ðdiscovered€ð!ð€after€asking€the€driver€for€license€and€registration€ð!ð€that€the€vehicle€was€aÐ °! Ðrental€car.€The€person€who€drives€a€rental€car€is€not€responsible€for€the€registration.€(SeeÐ °" ÐVeh.€Code,€ðð€40001(b)€and(e))€Consequently,€as€soon€as€the€officer€saw€the€rentalÐ °# Ðagreement,€he€should€have€returned€that€agreement€and€the€driverððs€license€to€the€driver€andÐ °$  Ðsent€him€on€his€way.€The€legitimate€basis€for€the€traffic€detention€had€ceased.Ð ° ÐIn€these€cases,€where€the€officer€realized€there€was€no€Vehicle€Code€violation€for€which€theÐ ° Ðdriver€could€be€cited,€and€yet€continued€with€the€traffic€detention€(asking€for€documents,Ð ° Ðrunning€a€warrant€check,€requesting€consent€to€search),€one€can€viably€argue€that€theÐ ° Ðconsent€was€given€in€the€course€of€an€unlawful€detention.Ð  ° ÐÔ‡¼¾° »ˆŠÌ?Ôò òÓ  ÓIII.€SEARCHING€THE€VEHICLE€DURING€OR€AFTER€Ð ° ÐTHE€TRAFFIC€STOPó óÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆ »¼¾°<]#ÔÔ‡¼¾° »ˆŠÌ?ÔÐ Ä ÐÌÓ^]Óà  àÔ#†ŠÌ?ˆ »¼¾°à]#ÔOnce€the€officer€has€stopped€a€vehicle€and€detained€the€driver,€there€are€many€waysÐ ê: Ðto€justify€a€search€of€the€vehicle.€The€officer€can€obtain€consent.€She€can€arrest€the€driver€orÐ ê: Ðpassenger€and€search€the€vehicle€incident€to€that€arrest.€The€officer€can€search€the€car€forÐ ê : Ðthe€driverððs€license€or€vehicle€registration.€She€can€acquire€probable€cause€to€search€the€carÐ ê : Ðfor€contraband,€sometimes€by€having€a€drug„detection€dog€sniff€the€exterior€of€the€vehicle.Ð ê : ÐThe€officer€can€learn€that€an€occupant€of€the€vehicle€is€on€parole€or€probation€with€a€searchÐ ê : Ðclause.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€One€can€seek€to€suppress€evidence€by€challenging€the€proffered€justification€forÐ ê :  Ðthe€search,€or€by€arguing€that€it€was€obtained€during€an€illegal€detention.Ð ê:  ÐÌà0  àò òA.€NO€RIGHT€TO€SEARCH€INCIDENT€TO€A€TRAFFIC€STOP€AND€THEÐ ê:  ÐISSUANCE€OF€A€CITATION€(THE€RULE€OF€òòKNOWLES€V.€IOWAóóó ó)Ðè8 ¾#¾# ÐÌà  àIn€a€unanimous€opinion,€authored€by€Chief€Justice€Rehnquist,€the€Supreme€Court,€inÐ ì< ÐòòKnowles€v.€Iowaóó€(1998)€525€U.S.€113,€invalidated€an€Iowa€statute€that€had€permitted€policeÐ ì< Ðofficers€in€that€state€to€conduct€a€full€search€of€the€vehicle€after€issuing€a€traffic€citation.Ð ì< ÐThe€statute€had€given€the€police€the€discretion€to€either€make€a€custodial€arrest€or€to€issue€aÐ ì< Ðcitation€when€they€stopped€a€driver€for€certain€Vehicle€Code€violations,€specificallyÐ ì< Ðincluding€speeding.€Then,€regardless€of€whether€the€officer€issued€a€citation€or€made€aÐ ì< Ðcustodial€arrest,€she€had€the€right€to€conduct€a€full€vehicle€search.€The€officer€could€issueÐ ì< Ðthe€citation€and€then€search€the€car;€she€needed€no€additional€justification€for€doing€so.Ð ì< Ð(òòKnowles€v.€Iowa,€supraóó.,€at€114„115.)Ð ì< ÐÌà  àThe€Court€held€that€this€Iowa€statue,€which€allowed€a€ð ðsearch€incident€to€citationððÐ ì< Ðfollowing€a€traffic€stop,€violated€the€Fourth€Amendment.€When€the€officer€doesnððt€actuallyÐ ì< Ðmake€a€custodial€arrest,€the€policies€that€permit€a€search€of€the€carððs€passengerÐ ì< Ðcompartment€do€not€come€into€play.€The€two€policies€permitting€a€search€incident€toÐ ì < Ðcustodial€arrest€are:€1)the€need€to€disarm€the€suspect€to€take€him€into€custody;€and€2)theÐ ì!< Ðneed€to€preserve€evidence€that€could€be€lost€or€destroyed.€(òòKnowles,€supra.óó,€at€116„117.)Ð ì"< ÐÌà  àWhen€the€officer€merely€issues€a€citation,€rather€than€arresting€the€driver,€theÐ ì$<  Ðconcern€for€officer€safety€diminishes.€There€is€no€need€to€make€sure€that€the€driver€€doesÐ ì%