definition 2, “maintenance of a person in custody or confinement, as while awaiting a court decision”
How later courts described this case
- definition 2, “maintenance of a person in custody or confinement, as while awaiting a court decision”
- cautioning that ‘‘high crime area justification is easily subject to abuse’’ [internal quotation marks omit- ted]
- noting that in that case “[njothing was being concealed, disposed of, exchanged, or even carried”
- time of 8:37 p.m., ‘‘while falling during darkness in winter, is simply not a late or unusual hour nor one from which any inference of criminality may be drawn’’
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Lloyd
24 Cal.3d 638, 645 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 724, 733
The opinion
RICHARDSON, J.
— I respectfully dissent, concurring in the' views expressed by Justice Clark and wishing only to add the following observations. As noted by Justice Elkington in his opinion for the Court of Appeal, there existed ample circumstances justifying both a limited detention and “pat-down” search for weapons. The detention occurred at night in a high crime area, after the suspects reacted. furtively and evasively when they observed the officer approaching. Given both the officer’s substantial police experience (having made at least 500 prior arrests) and the nature of his observations, he could reasonably conclude that some form of criminal activity was occurring which warranted further investigation.
*652 In addition, in my view, the pat-down search for weapons was also proper under the circumstances. The officer testified that “there were numerous guns on the street at this time during this period. . . .” Indeed, he and his partner had recovered “at least five weapons during this period [i.e., one week] in this particular area.” Because it was at night in a high crime area, the officer could reasonably believe on the basis of his recent experience that the suspects might be armed, and he so testified. A precautionaiy pat-down search seems to me entirely reasonable as a minimum protection against a surprise assault. As properly noted by Justice Elkington, “Where a police officer in the light of his experience concludes that a person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous he is entitled for the protection of himself and others to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [Citations.]”
In the present case, this pat-down search produced a loaded “six shot .38 Special revolver,” confirming the officer’s strong suspicion that defendant might be armed.
I would affirm the conviction.