![](/sites/default/files/styles/350_x_250/public/2024-07/police%20car%20night%20time%20iStock-1480429674.jpg?itok=puwIARiI)
Court Invalidates Evidence Discovered After Group Detention Expires
The warrantless search of a person’s vehicle under the Automobile Exception requires that there be probable cause. The recovery of a firearm from another person at the scene, with all those present being gang members, does not provide the necessary probable cause. A continued detention of everyone at the scene of one subject’s arrest for possession of a firearm, where only one firearm is observed by witnesses prior to the contact, is illegal; any reasonable suspicion having dissipated upon the recovery of the one firearm.
On July 5, 2023, a citizen reported to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office that a group of men were in the apparent process of creating a music video in the parking lot of an apartment in Rancho Cordova. One of the men was observed to be holding a handgun. The caller described the man holding the gun as thin, approximately 16 to 17 years old, and wearing “all black clothing.”
Deputies and detectives from the Sheriff’s gang suppression unit responded to the call, arriving at 8:12 p.m. That particular location was known by the gang detectives to be within territory claimed by the East Side Pirus criminal street gang. One of the six men found to be at that location was defendant, who was a heavyset 300-pound man of approximately 30 years of age. Another subject, referred to as “D.M,” and who was a juvenile, was also there. Defendant was wearing all black. D.M. was wearing a black jacket and blue jeans. Upon the officers’ arrival, the group of six individuals was instructed to put their hands in the air. Everyone complied except for D.M. who immediately took off running. He was caught within two minutes and, upon being taken into custody, was found to be in possession of a pistol. Another gun was later found in D.M.’s car.
After arresting D.M., the other five men, including defendant, were all detained at the scene. By 8:22 p.m., an active investigation, involving “a lot of tasks and duties,” was underway. This included records checks for all members of the group, including checks of the “known persons file database,” which revealed that all were members of the East Side Pirus. Employees of the apartment complex from where the original call came were also interviewed.
During all this, defendant was patted down for weapons (none was found), handcuffed, and detained in the front seat of a patrol car. When interviewed, it was learned that he had driven to the scene in a car that was parked about 20 feet away. He twice declined the detectives’ request for permission to search the car. This discussion with defendant ate up about 5 to 10 minutes. Finally, believing that they had probable cause to search his car, it was searched, resulting in the recovery of a loaded magazine. As a result, defendant’s person was "pats searched" more thoroughly. This time a Glock handgun was found and he was arrested. At this point, defendant had been detained for some 41 minutes.
The Sacramento County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with numerous gun- and gang-related offenses, along with a prior strike. Upon the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress, he filed for a pre-trial writ of mandate.