19-04_Vehicle_Searches

MOUNTAIN 2019 POLICE VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL SERVICES UNIT TRAINING AND INFORMATION BULLETIN DATE: November 25, 2019 BULLETIN NUMBER: 19-04 SUBJECT: PAGE 1 OF 1 INFORMATION: Police Can No Longer Search Vehicles for Identification or Other Related Paperwork The California Supreme Court has reversed its previous decision (Arturo D. and People v. Hinger (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60) on police officers searching vehicles for identification in places where a person could reasonably expect to find identification in a vehicle. Based on the Court's most recent decision (People v. Lopez (2019) Cal.5th, S 238627, slip opn. at 43), officers may no longer search a vehicle in an attempt to locate identification. The previous practice of searching a vehicle for identification when none was presented is no longer a valid search and the previous practice must be stopped immediately. Based on this decision by the California Supreme Court, it can easily be inferred that the practice of searching a vehicle for registration or insurance documents should also be stopped. Prepared by: Lt. St. Clair Approved by: Lt. St. Clair Attached: People v. Lopez (2019) full text CONFIDENTIAL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. MARIA ELENA LOPEZ, Defendant and Respondent. S238627 Third Appellate District C078537 Yolo County Superior Court CRF143400 November 25, 2019 Justice Kruger authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Liu, Cuéllar, and Groban concurred. Justice Chin filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Justice Corrigan concurred. PEOPLE v. LOPEZ S238627 Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. Acting on an anonymous tip about a motorist's erratic driving, a police officer approached defendant Maria Elena Lopez after she parked and exited her car. When the officer asked if she had a driver's license, she said she did not. Police then detained her for unlicensed driving and, without asking her name, searched the car for Lopez's personal identification. They found methamphetamine in a purse sitting on the front passenger's seat. The trial court held the search was invalid under Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332 (Gant), which narrowed the scope of permissible warrantless vehicle searches incident to a driver's arrest. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that the search was authorized under this court's pre-Gant decision in In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60 (Arturo D.), which allowed police to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide a license or other personal identification upon request. We granted review to consider the application and continuing validity of the Arturo D. rule in light of subsequent legal developments. At the time Arturo D. was decided, no other state or federal court had recognized an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for suspicionless traffic-stop PEOPLE v. LOPEZ Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. vehicle searches. The same holds true today; California remains the only state to have recognized such an exception. Considering the issue in light of more recent decisions from both the United States Supreme Court and our sister states, we now conclude that the desire to obtain a driver's identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. To the extent Arturo D. held otherwise, we conclude that rule should no longer be followed. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings. I. On the morning of July 4, 2014, City of Woodland Police Officer Jeff Moe responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving. The tip described the car, a dark-colored Toyota, and the area in which it was driving. Unable to locate the vehicle, Officer Moe asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate, then drove by the address where the car was registered. Not seeing the vehicle, he resumed his duties. Around 1:30 p.m., Officer Moe received a second anonymous report concerning the same car. The tipster identified the car's location and asserted the driver, whom the tipster identified as "Marlena,” “had been drinking all day." Again unable to locate the car, Officer Moe returned to the address where the car was registered. This time, he parked and waited. A few minutes later, defendant Maria Elena Lopez drove up and parked in front of the house. Moe did not observe any traffic violations or erratic driving. But believing the driver to be "Marlena," Officer Moe 2 PEOPLE v. LOPEZ Opinion of the Court by Kruger, J. approached the car. Moe testified at the suppression hearing that Lopez saw him, looked nervous, got out of the car, and began walking away from him. Moe did not smell alcohol or note any other signs of intoxication. But because he "wanted to