Unconstitutional Traffic Stop: Conviction Reversed

Posted on: April 28, 2008 at 6:01 p.m.

A recent California Appellate Court holding in a traffic stop case reversed a conviction for possessing a large quantity of marijuana.

For Los Angeles Criminal Attorneys practicing in Southern California courts, this is an important ruling for defending the constitutionality of traffic stops based on untested informants' tips, litigated as Search and Seizure Motions pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5.

The court ruled as follows: A border patrol officer who randomly selected and stopped the closer of two U-Haul trucks he observed after receiving a tip about suspicious activity involving such a truck lacked a reasonable suspicion of illegal conduct to justify his actions.

Holding that the trial judge should have granted Ruben Lopez Reyes

Tagged as: probation and sentencing laws

Comments:

Justin Wedell on December 1, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. wrote:

This is a case of technicality, and as such is a prime example of predominant frustrations with the jury trial system. Many might argue that it is foolish to throw out the prosecution of an actual crime because the evidence or discovery of it occurred in an unlawful manner. For those in that camp, please examine the last statement one more time. The key word is “unlawful.” Cases of extreme technicality such as this one demonstrate the persistent need of a system that holds in check the power and oversight of its officials. In demonstrating the willingness of the system to cast aside evidence because of procedural violation, such rules encourage authorities to do a better and more legal job of serving their communities. These extreme measures insist upon a higher standard of service. As such, they shouldn’t be lamented but praised. The real crime in this situation was the violation of the officer, and we all paid the price for it in an overturned conviction. This raises an extremely important point – it’s not just the justice system that loses out in a case like this, but all of us. It is the duty of our law enforcement to uphold those standards and rights we so firmly hold as necessary components of our American identity. In failing to do this, they not only damage the safety of our communities but the safety of our ideals.

Kyle Reilly on May 1, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. wrote:

While David does have an interesting point that we should not let little details overrule the pursuit of justice, it is important to note that if details are overlooked, we are losing the freedoms that the Constitution provides us. The idea of one

Tyler Marik on May 1, 2008 at 7:43 p.m. wrote:

I recall you talking about the age discrimination case you argued in Law School regarding the age discrimination case that involved tons of logic and facts. The point of the story is that logic does not always get you what you want. Sometimes even the most logical point when presented by the police officer doesn

Sally Derohanessian on May 1, 2008 at 6:31 p.m. wrote:

I agree completely with David's response - the officer was doing his job. In a given situation such as this, it is natural for an officer to act on impulse and see to it right away that he follow the problem - whatever it may be - and investigate the matter at hand. In fact, I would be alarmed if the officer had not decided to follow the trucks with suspicion. It would make me, as a citizen feel very discouraged and unsafe. However, the only thing I feel suspicious of is the witness. In this case, we know that his observations proved to be corret, but how do we know if in the future, in another similar case, someone might pose themselves to be a good samaritan but offer false witness to throw an officer off track, perhaps to carry out illegal activity of his own? Despite this possibility; however, I still feel the officer did the right thing in taking the chance. Like the saying goes - better safe than sorry. Again, as David called it, the loopholes keep driving the focus away from the big picture, the big picture being our judicial system that is there to protect the citizens, that is the first and foremost goal of the system. If police officers were to feel sentimental in considering these loopholes every time possible danger lurked around them, then what point is there to have police officers around in the first place? To conclude, I feel those loopholes should be debated in court given the entire context of the circumstance as well as the evidence; afterall, the man convicted was guilty and in such a case, these loopholes are not significant - I feel they only serve a part of the system and should not be integrated into the court systems as a rule of their own. It shouldn't be a rule of thumb for officers to act on, but more of a limit to consider and use to measure their actions with respect to a particular case.

David Askander on April 30, 2008 at 11:39 p.m. wrote:

I personally I fell that it is a travesty when our judicial system has the evidence to convict an individuals of committing a crime yet because of the safeguards that are set up a police office, who is just merely doing his job, to protect and serve, must rather look the other way and let the illegal substance come into our country. The problem we have set up a system of judication that is seems we are allowing the little details and complexity of the system overrule the pursuit of justice. If were are really interested in seeking truth it is important to keep a certain level of commonsense and logic in matters as important as illegal drug use and not be so worried about the hoops and hurdles that are set up to protect the innocent not the already guilty.

Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses.

Los Angeles County, CA: Agoura, Altadena, Alhambra, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Century City, Chatsworth, Compton, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Downtown Criminal Court, El Segundo, East Los Angeles, Eastlake, Encino, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Los Angeles Lawyer, La Canada, LAX Court, Los Padrinos, Long Beach, Los Angeles Attorney, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Newhall, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica, South Gate, South Pasadena, Sylmar, Torrance, Universal City, Valencia, Van Nuys, West Covina, West Hollywood, Walnut, Westchester, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills, California. Orange County, CA: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine Attorney, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Lawyer, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, California. Ventura County, CA: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village. San Bernardino County, CA: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland.

Prior Criminal Law Posts

Unconstitutional Traffic Stop: Conviction Reversed

Comments:

Add your comment!

Firm Fan Page & News

Our Criminal Defense Partners

Criminal Defense Resources

Prior Criminal Law Posts