If Cop Shines Spotlight on You, Are You Detained?

In the context of police to suspect encounters, there are casual encounters, detentions and arrests.  The line between each is often difficult to distinguish and relies heavily on the totality of the circumstances in each specific situation.

Indeed, officers can certainly approach people on the street and engage them in consensual conversation.  People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 968, 974.  So merely walking up to someone in a parked car is not a detention.  The issue is whether there are additional circumstances, the totality of which transform the encounter into a detention.  If the interaction is transformed into a detention, there must be sufficient grounds under the Fourth Amendment to restrain the liberty of the person.

In San Joaquim County, on a March evening in 2018, San Joaquim Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb put these principals to the test.  He was patrolling a residential neighborhood in a marked police car.  The area was well-known for narcotics sales and weapons possession. 

While patrolling, Grubb had both his headlights and high beams on for “extra visibility.”  He drove past a BMV legally parked in front of a residence, in the vicinity of a streetlight.  The car’s engine and lights were off, but Grubb could see smoke emanating from the slightly open windows.  He saw three people inside and made eye contact with the occupants as he drove by.

Grubb then made a U-turn and parked 15 to 20 feet behind the BMW and turned on his spotlight.  He did not activate his siren or emergency light or issue any command to the vehicle occupants.  He sat there for 15 to 20 seconds while informing dispatch where he was.

Grubb then approached the vehicle by walking up to it.  He did not draw his weapon.

As he approached the car, a woman opened the back passenger door and “jumped out.”  She then walked to the back of the BMW.  Grubb asked her what she was doing and she said, “I live here.” 

Grubb now became  concerned for his safety and told the woman to stand on the sidewalk nearby.  As he came closer to the BMW, he could smell marijuana and even with the spotlight on, he had to use his flashlight to look into the car, where he saw two bags of marijuana on the rear passenger floorboard.

Leon William Tacardon was in the driver’s seat.  In a three-minute conversation, Tacardon told Grubb that he was on probation with a search condition.  Grubb then called for backup and when officers arrived, he placed Tacardon in the backseat of the police patrol car.

Grubb then searched the BMW and found a vial containing seventy-six pills.  Tacardon was later searched incident to an arrest and he was found to have $1,904 in cash on him.  Laboratory analysis of the pills showed they were hydrocodone.  The bags contained 696 grams of marijuana.

Tacardon was charged with possession for sale of a controlled substance (hydrocodone and marijuana), Health & Safety Code §§ 11351 and 11359(a).  At his preliminary hearing, he moved to suppress the evidence found pursuant to the search of his vehicle.  He argued there were not sufficient grounds under the Fourth Amendment to detain him. 

The judge denied the motion, noting that the police officer did not make a traffic stop and held that the police officer’s observation of what appeared to be marijuana in the back seat justified a further investigation.

Tacardon renewed his motion to suppress in conjunction with a motion to dismiss the information under Penal Code § 995 based on the preliminary hearing transcript.  This time, the judge agreed with Tacardon, holding that Deputy Grubb first engaged in a consensual encounter when he initially pulled behind Tacardon’s car and turned on his spotlight, but his encounter turned into a detention of Tacardon when he detained the female passenger.  At that point, Tacardon was not free to leave, so he was detained.  Therefore, the search was illegal because at that time, even if Tacardon was on probation with a search condition, there were not sufficient grounds to search the car.

The People then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which agreed with the first ruling by the trial court that Grubb’s position behind Tacardon’s car, his spotlight illumination and approach on foot did not “manifest a sufficient show of police authority to constitute a detention.”  People v. Tacardon (2020) 53 Cal. App. 4th 89, 99.  The court noted that the deputy did not block defendant’s car, use his emergency lights, or immediately question Tacardon.  It concluded, “simply put, although a person whose vehicle is illuminated by police spotlights at night may well feel he or she is ‘ the object of official scrutiny, such directed scrutiny does not amount to a detention.” 

The court of appeal also rejected Tacardon’s contention that Grubb’s interaction with the female passenger transformed the encounter into a detention.  It reasoned that there was no evidence that Tacardon observed the deputy’s interaction with the passenger or that Tacardon was required to remain at the scene like his passenger.

Tacardon then appealed to the California Supreme Court, which reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if Tacardon was aware of the passenger being told not to leave.

What we found most significant about this case, however, was the California Supreme Court’s comments that a reasonable person would not view the deputy’s use of a spotlight as coercive and that a reasonable person would consider himself free to leave. 

We do not agree with this.  We believe that had Tacardon left after the police officer shined the spotlight on his car, the officer would have arrested Tacardon for evading, obstructing or resisting arrest at the least.

For more information about detention issues in the context of the Fourth Amendment, please click on the following articles: