The Supreme Court considers pretext stops
The courts have applied two standards to determine whether a stop is acceptable. One standard, which is my personal favorite, is the "would have" test. That is, would a reasonable officer have made the stop, in the circumstances, if he was not acting with a covert motive. This was adopted by the 9th Circuit in United States v. Cannon, 29 F.3rd 472 (1994).and therefore it is the law in California.
Enhanced enforcement
One way to tell what a reasonable officer would do is to look at what is customary. If you find that stops for minor traffic offenses are not usual, then you can argue that any such stop made is suspect. We find the CHP trying to establish the reasonableness of their stops by referring to them as "enhanced enforcement". This label says that while they usually don't make stops for minor violations, in this special case they were making all sorts of unusual stops and so the stops are what an officer "would have" made even if normally he "would not have" made them.
"Could have" as a standard
In Whren v United States, 95-5841 the DC Circuit court adopted a "could have" standard. That is,"a traffic stop is permissible as long as a reasonable officer in the same circumstances could have" stopped the car for the suspected traffic violation". This approach essentially allows officers to stop anyone they want at any time (like a California "seat-belt" stop), and then manufacture a reason to justify the stop. No enhanced enforcement program is required to make the stops ok.
The Supreme Court
So we have two standards in the Federal System now. That's bad, and the Supreme Court has taken up Whren to try and reach a decision that either agrees with the 9th, agrees with DC, or somehow makes them both seem the same. (Or, tosses them both and sets up a new standard). We'll let you know how it turns out.
|
|
