Are Pretext Vehicle Stops Illegal in California?

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: While working patrol, a police officer sees a known gang member at a local gas station. The officer sees that his vehicle doesn't have a front license plate. The officer parks and waits for him to drive away. While they wait, the officer calls a K9 officer and has him start heading their way. When the gang member drives away from the station, the officer conducts a vehicle stop a short distance away. The police officer notifies him that they stopped him for not having a front license plate and then they begin to write the citation. While writing the citation the K9 arrives, sniffs around the car and hits on the sent of burnt gun powder. The officer abandons their citation, searches the vehicle and locates a firearm in the center console.

Will the firearm evidence be dismissed because the officer conducted a pretextual vehicle stop in violation of California Vehicle Code 2806.5?

Answer: These were the circumstances in the 2024 California Court of Appeals Case The People v. Valle. During the trial of this case, the trial court said the officer violated California Vehicle Code 2806.5 by conducting the pretextual stop. If you recall from a prior video on The Briefing Room called, "California Officers Must Now State The Reason For The Stop", this new vehicle code section requires officers to tell someone the reason they're being detained before any questioning can begin.

The California Court of Appeals heard this case on appeal and did not agree with the trial court. They first pointed out that in the United States Supreme Court Case Rodriguez v. United States, the court decided that officers may call a K9 and have the dog sniff around a car on a vehicle stop as long as the original mission of the traffic stop is not extended. The Briefing Room has a video on that case called, "Can You Wait For The K9 To Sniff?"

They then explained that the length of time a traffic stop takes is determined by when the officer actually pulled the car over, not when he or she noticed the violation. They said, "A traffic stop begins for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when an officer pulls a vehicle over for a traffic infraction."

And finally, the explained that the trial court was incorrect in interpreting Vehicle Code Section 2806.5 as prohibiting pretextual stops. They said, "The United States Supreme Court has long held that, under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional reasonableness of traffic stops does not depend on the actual motivations of the individual officers involved." They explained that there was a provision in the original wording of the bill that created Vehicle Code Section 2806.5 which tried to prohibit pretextual stops, but that wording was removed before the bill was passed.

They said, "As relevant here, the lack of a front license plate has long been recognized as a legitimate basis for a traffic stop. Whether the officer also had additional reasons for conducting the traffic stop does not eliminate an otherwise reasonable suspicion that a driver was violating the law. In other words, pretextual stops are tolerated - so long as the lawful bounds that justify the stop are observed."

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.