People v. Hernandez

California Supreme Court Jun 27, 2003 No. ACR 4497Published

Before: Thang N. Barrett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A traffic stop based on an officer's erroneous belief that all front-facing vehicle lights must be white or yellow is unlawful because the officer failed to establish reasonable suspicion that the specific light violated the Vehicle Code.

Issues

Whether an officer's mistaken belief that all front-facing vehicle lights must be white or yellow constitutes reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.
Whether the prosecution met its burden to prove the legality of a warrantless detention based on a vehicle's lighting.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If an officer simply does not know the law, and makes a stop based upon objective facts that cannot constitute a violation, his suspicions cannot be reasonable.”

“The People failed to meet their burden in showing that the officer had a reasonable suspicion that the purple neon light around defendant's front license plate light was unlawful.”

2 Cal.Rptr.3d 181 (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Alejandro HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. ACR 4497. Appellate Division, Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

June 27, 2003. [182] George Kennedy, District Attorney, K.C. Lopez and Cindy Cole, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Scott Ewbank, San Jose, for Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION

THANG N. BARRETT, Judge.

INTRODUCTION

On September 23, 2001, Officer Kurtis Powell of the California Highway Patrol observed a Chevy Blazer with a front license plate frame that was ringed with a neon purple light. Believing that this constituted a violation of the Vehicle Code, Officer Powell made a car stop and, in the course of his investigation, discovered that defendant had been driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Defendant brought a motion to suppress in the trial court, claiming that the officer lacked a reasonable basis for believing the neon purple light around the license plate frame was unlawful. Agreeing with Officer Powell that the slight emitting from defendant's neon license plate frame could only be white or amber,[1] the trial court denied the motion. We reverse.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In a complaint filed on September 26, 2001, defendant was charged in count 1 with a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subdivision (a)[2] (driving while under the influence of alcohol), and in count 2 with a violation of section 23152, subdivision (b) (driving with a blood-alcohol level of .08 or more). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence.

Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the allegations of two prior convictions.

People v. Hernandez

AI Brief

OPINION

INTRODUCTION

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief