holding that explanation which was not patently inconsistent, false, or inherently implausible did not furnish a reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity
How later courts described this case
- holding that explanation which was not patently inconsistent, false, or inherently implausible did not furnish a reasonable basis for suspecting criminal activity
- whether search was “reasonable” within the meaning of the constitution is a question of law, and appellate court must exercise its independent judgment, measuring the facts, as found by the trier, against the constitutional standard of reasonableness
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
I respectfully dissent.
In my view the record contains ample evidence to sustain the implied findings of both the magistrate and the superior court that Officer Cozart had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant.
The pertinent facts and legal principles were correctly described in Justice Elkington’s opinion for the Court of Appeal in this case, as follows:
*130 “Here the illegally parked automobile first observed by the police officers had its taillights covered by cloth, and its occupant explained that he was waiting for someone whose full name he did not know, driving a yellow pick-up truck of Japanese manufacture. When such a vehicle drove by, upon seeing the police officers the occupants looked the other way and speeded up the car. And as stated by [defendant] Loewen’s briefs: the police officers’ ‘suspicions were aroused by: (1) Landrum’s nervous behavior; (2) the similarity between the yellow Toyota and Bub’s vehicle, as described by Landrum; (3) the behavior of the men in the Toyota as it passed by on the road; and (4) the incidence of thefts in the Anderson Springs-Middletown area.’
“We are unable to conclude . . . that both the magistrate and the superior court acted unreasonably in finding the pick-up automobile’s detention to be based upon more than ‘mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch’ (In re Tony C. [1978] 21 Cal.3d 888, 894 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 366 , 582 P.2d 957 ]), and in recognizing that ‘experienced police officers naturally develop an ability to perceive the unusual and suspicious which is of enormous value in the difficult tasks of protecting the security and safety of law-abiding citizens.’ (People v. Gale [1973] 9 Cal.3d 788, 795 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 852 , 511 P.2d 1204 ].)”
I would affirm the judgment.