This post is offered as a discussion topic only and does not represent legal advice. Officers must refer to the laws in their own State as well as their agency's policies, which can be more restrictive on officers than the law requires. Scenario: An officer is in a caravan of several patrol vehicles, canvassing a high crime area known for narcotics. The intent of the caravan is to locate narcotics sales, drug customers, and lookouts. As the officer canvasses, they observe a male subject, standing alone, holding a bag. As soon as the subject sees him, he immediately flees. Can the officer give chase and detain the man to investigate further? Answer: This scenario is similar to the 2000 United States Supreme Court Case of Illinois v Wardlow. The court explained: “...an officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. While "reasonable suspicion" is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.” The court then went on to explain: “In this case, moreover, it was not merely respondent's presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking that aroused the officers' suspicion, but his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police. Our cases have also recognized that nervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion.” “Headlong flight—wherever it occurs—is the consummate act of evasion: It is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such. In reviewing the propriety of an officer's conduct, courts do not have available empirical studies dealing with inferences drawn from suspicious behavior, and we cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty from judges or law enforcement officers where none exists. Thus, the determination of reasonable suspicion must be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.” "...officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation." "We conclude (the officer) was justified in suspecting that (the man) was involved in criminal activity, and, therefore, in investigating further." So in your case, you can use your commonsense judgment and inferences about human behavior to support your reasonable suspicion stop of the fleeing subject. An officer who works in California might be wondering what the difference is between this US Supreme Court Case and the California Supreme Court Case of People v. Flores where the suspect ducked behind a car when he saw the police. The California Supreme Court discussed the difference in Flores by saying: "Flores’s disinclination to engage with the officers does not carry the same salience as headlong flight in the totality of the circumstances analysis. His acts of ducking out of sight, bending with his hands by his shoe, and not acknowledging the officers’ presence, suggest an unwillingness to be observed or interact. But they are not the “consummate act of evasion.” Police officers should remember to articulate facts, observations, and their perspective leading up to any detention. If you have any further questions or concerns about this case, please refer to the entire case which is provided in the additional resources section of the lesson in you TheBriefingRoom.com Subscription and also your agency's policy, which can be more restrictive on officers than the law requires. This blog topic serves as a summary of our video lesson on this crucial topic. If you're interested in accessing the full video lesson and additional resources, click the link to register for your free 30-day trial.

This post is only offered as a discussion topic only and does not represent legal advice. Officers must refer to the laws in their own State as well as their agency's policies, which can be more restrictive on officers that the law requires. Scenario: While working patrol, an officer legally detains a juvenile in the parking lot of a movie theater. After the officer gets consent to search her backpack, they discover the juvenile has an unloaded firearm that's registered to her parents. Is there any circumstance under which the juvenile can lawfully possess a firearm in California? Answer: According to California Penal Code Section 29610(c) says: “Commencing July 1, 2023, a minor shall not possess any firearm.” However, Section 29615 lists several exceptions to this which require the juvenile either be accompanied by a parent, guarding or responsible adult or has their permission. They also must be in direct transit to or from a lawful recreational sport or activity or be on lands owned by their parent or guardian. You can find those exceptions listed in their entirety in the additional resources for this video. This blog topic serves as a summary of our video lesson on this crucial topic. If you're interested in accessing the full video lesson and additional resources, click the link to register for your free 30-day trial.