Brendlin and passenger detention on traffic stop stuff

[Ultimate86]

So, I read through the majority of that threat in the General Law Enforcement forums.

It makes sense that without reasonable suspicion, I do not have the right to DEMAND ID from the passenger during a traffic stop. I can ask for ID, which they can provide consensually or refuse.

BUT, let's say I effect the stop and the passenger runs from the car. Officer safety issues aside, can I chase after the passenger and arrest him for 148?

[FJDave]

IF, and only IF you can articulate your concerns....you are in a high (documented) drug activity area, or the suspect matched the description, etc. You must have a darned good reason for chasing and hooking someone that is out for a nightly jog from the car you just stopped. If you are in a rural area, no illegal activities are documented in the area, the car doesn't match the description of a 211 at the local stop and rob, etc., let him go and concentrate on the driver and the car. The passenger running gives you reasonable suspicion for detaining the driver and digging a little deeper.

[Ultimate86]

Thank you for the clear and concise answer.

[Feb2nd1979]

IF, and only IF you can articulate your concerns....you are in a high (documented) drug activity area, or the suspect matched the description, etc. You must have a darned good reason for chasing and hooking someone that is out for a nightly jog from the car you just stopped. If you are in a rural area, no illegal activities are documented in the area, the car doesn't match the description of a 211 at the local stop and rob, etc., let him go and concentrate on the driver and the car. The passenger running gives you reasonable suspicion for detaining the driver and digging a little deeper.

According to brendlin vs. California the passenger is legally seized and detained by the officer during a traffic stop, If he runs then the officer would have right to chase him. I have had individuals detained and run, and of course you will give chase.

[Fuzz]

You are in control of EVERYONE in that vehicle. You must order them to stay if they try to leave and if they continue to leave they are 148. There is NO REASON that you have to articulate why you detained everyone in the car as there is already case law clarifying you have control over all occupants for officer safety reasons. Since as soon as they try to leave the vehicle you would order them to stay they are now violating your lawful order and no further RS or PC is needed to give chase.

With that being said tactics would then dictate if you would chase or not, but you have every legal right to chase and arrest that passenger for 148

[Ultimate86]

Accck... FJDave or Fuzz??

[FJDave]

Go with Fuzz....

[Blackavar]

Fuzz......

[FJDave]

I keep getting department policy mixed in with case law....one of the hazards of getting older. Gah. Sorry for the cornfusion.

[bigcitypolice06]

Not to mention flight alone is worthy enough for a detention...if he runs he is either dirty or something in the car is...flip the coin and see which one proves worthy. I tend to stay with the car...unless i have something good on the runner (known suspect ect)-the old risk vs reward matrix. I don't like the idea of people in a vehicle seeing me go running southbound through the houses...too easy to get ambushed, and why go in foot pursuit unless you know what you have.

[LawyerCop]

According to brendlin vs. California the passenger is legally seized and detained by the officer during a traffic stop, If he runs then the officer would have right to chase him. I have had individuals detained and run, and of course you will give chase.

The issue is not one of whether the passenger are detained. They are. The question is the existance of reasonable suspicion "crime is afoot" (Terry v Ohio) as it applies to the passenger(s).The passenger running may provide sufficient information to establish R.S., but what is the passenger just gets out and walks away? What Brendlin held was that the passenger is, in fact, detained during a detention of the driver. The existance of legal cause for the passengers detention will turn on the facts

[Spectre]

Wish I could convince my Sgt of this. We had this debate about Brendlin in briefing and two separate Sgts said the passenger is not detained unless you have some other RS to detain them beyond the mere traffic stop. Even though I had numerous DA's from our county backing me.....

[mdrdep]

Spectre your sgt. needs a legal update class. :D

to cover your bases legally speaking; if you want to ensure good pc on the running passenger make sure you order him to stop as he bolts from the vehicle. His refusal to follow your order puts him in clear violation of 148 and it's all good from there.

[Blizzination]

+3 to everyone else.

Brendlin v California was a case where the passenger of a vehicle was attempting to challenge the legality of a stop. Therefore, the issue was raised as to whether or not a passenger is deemed "detained" for 4th amendment purposes. The courts ruled passengers are deemed detained.

Now that you've effected the stop on the vehicle, all occupants are considered detained. If a passenger attempts to exit the vehicle, you can order them to stop, and remain inside. Failure to do so is a violation of 148(a)(1) PC.

[erich]

It is funny if you listen or read the transcripts, the attorney representing the state actually was arguing that the passenger was not legally detained based on the mere traffic stop, but the fact that the officers had prior contacts with the passenger gave them reasonable suspicion to detain him. The justices kind or were making fun of the state attorney because they said any reasonable occupant would believe they aren't free to leave. Anyways if you ever get bored they have the audio up on the Supreme Court's website.

[DOAcop38]

Spectre your sgt. needs a legal update class. :D

to cover your bases legally speaking; if you want to ensure good pc on the running passenger make sure you order him to stop as he bolts from the vehicle. His refusal to follow your order puts him in clear violation of 148 and it's all good from there.

a "waste of time" ( "save yer' breath to cool yer' soup".....

I had to "battle" with a wet nosed Pacific Div LAPD Sgt( a seat warmer promotion guy with only 5 whole yrs on the job, 2 in DARE) on the elements for a 209 P.C. arrest by asking me " how could you know how to do this, you only work at the airport, and I've never seen this charge before"....

Just "argued" with a Sgt who thinks that H.S. 11362.5 allows people to drive under the inflence,as well as possess it with passengers in the vehicle because they "have a photo copied, crumpled up "doctors recommendation".(and this is in a HIDTA location like LAX,where marijuana is still considered a schedule I drug, and where the Federal gov't doesn't recognize ANY legal possession like "california law")

the "problem" with our profession is that everyone, given time to allow their ears to dry, THINKS they are immediately knowledgeable, and not to be challenged.It gets worse when these same folks promote.One of the main things I like about this site is the debate on legal issues, and presentation of case law by others.you'd be surprised at how many officers and Supervisors use the internet everyday( for vacation travel info, to check email from their "code x" hook up), yet NEVER use it to look up things that provide them with the tools to do the job...........

[mdrdep]

Sergeants can't live with them and can't frag em and leave on the roadside :D

To think I'm trying to promote too. Of course I waited until I had 20 years on first, I got former trainees that outrank me. Of course they still call me sir ;)

[DOAcop38]

Sergeants can't live with them and can't frag em and leave on the roadside :D

To think I'm trying to promote too. Of course I waited until I had 20 years on first, I got former trainees that outrank me. Of course they still call me sir ;)

:D:D:D:D(.. and don't it feeeeel gooood when they STILL need you to help them figger' somethin' out?"......)

[nobodyjr]

And remember the threat of an illegal detention is not a detention in itself. So if you have someone run from you after you yell stop (or ask if they want to speak with you)... and they jaywalk/run against a red hand/spit on the side walk as they run from you etc etc, there is now PC for a detention.

There was a good LAPD case on that.