Policy Text
JACKIE LACEY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
ONEMINUTE
BRIEF
COPYRIGHT © 2020 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR
NON -COMMERCIA L PROSECUTORIAL, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY . 1MB@da.lacounty.gov
NUMBER : 2020-32 DATE : 09-24-20 BY: Devallis Rutledge TOPIC : Ped Stops
ISSUE : What are the Fourth Amendment principles that ap ply to police detentions of
pedestr ians?
Well-trained law enforcement officers routinely attempt consensua l encounters with
suspicious ped estrians, whe never possible . (See 1MB 2014 -02.) When attempted consensual
encounters fail or are not practical, pede strians may sometimes be temporarily detained for
investigation , under the following principles:
● Characteristics of a Detentio n. A person has been detained when police have said or
done something that “would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person
was not free to decline the officers ’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter .” Florida v.
Bostick (1991) 501 US 429, 439. And, “[T]he ‘reasonable person ’ test presup poses an
innocent person.” Id., 438.
“Examples of circumstances that might indicate a [detention] would be the threatening
presence of several officers , the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching
of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that
compliance with the officer ’s request might be compelled. ” US v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 US
544, 554.
Also, a pedestr ian might be detained if the facts showed that “the police activated a
siren or [red or blue lights] , or that they comm anded [the perso n] to halt, … or that they
operated the [pol ice] car in an aggressive manner to block [the person ’s] course or other wise
control the direction or speed of his movement. ” Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 US
567, 575.
This in formation was current as of publication date. It is not i ntended as legal a dvice. It is
recommended that readers check for sub sequent developments, and consult legal advisors to ensure
currency after publication. Local policies and procedures r egarding ap plication should be observed.
LADA ONE -MINUTE BRIEF NO. 20 20-32 PAGE 2
● What ’s Not a Detentio n? Under the Supreme Court ’s standards, many police actions that
may indicate “directed sc rutiny” do not themselves create a detention. Examples :
• Requesti ng (not dem anding) ID. Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 US 491, 501.
• Asking questions . INS v. Delgado (1984) 466 US 210, 216.
• Driving alongside a running ped. Michigan v. Chesternut (1988) 486 US 567 , 575.
• Chasing a suspect who doesn’t yield. California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 US 621, 626.
• Requesting consent t o search . Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 US 429, 431.
● Justifying a Detention . Law enforcement officers need only reasona ble sus picio n of
criminal behavior (not probable cause , or “PC”) to justify stopping a pedestrian. Terry v.
Ohio (1968) 392 US 1, 22. This could be based on , for example, observed sus picio us
behavi or, as in Terry ; or on a criminal profile , US v. So kolow (1989) 490 US 1 , 10; or on t he
person’s sudden , unprovoked flight on approach of police in a high -crime area. Illinois v.
Wardlow (2000) 5 28 US 119, 125. Stops may also be based on violation s of muni cipal codes
or sections of the Vehicle C ode regulating pedestrian conduct, such as …
• VC § 21456.1 —disobey ing “walk/don ’t walk” signals .
• VC § 21461.5 —disobey ing other traffic signals.
• VC § 21950(b) —entering a crosswalk when oncom ing traffic is an immediate hazard.
• VC § 21954(a) —entering the street when oncom ing traffic is an immediate hazard.
• VC § 21955—crossing between two adjacent light-controlled intersections ( “jaywalking ”).
• VC § 21966—walking in a b ike lane where a sidewalk is available.
• VC § 23110( a)—throwing any substance at a passing vehicle.
Detentions may not be based on a person ’s mere presence in a high -crime area,
Brown v. Texas (1979) 443 US 47 , 52; nor on anonymous