THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL UPDATE
Remember 09/11/2001 | Support Our Troops | Support Our Cops
LU Ref# CAI00049
September 1, 2024
Author Ref. No: Vol.29 No. 9
LU Ref# CAI00049
September 1, 2024
Author Ref. No:   Vol.29 No. 9
CONSOLIDATED ISSUE

Robert Phillips
Deputy District Attorney (Retired)

CASES INDEX
CASE BRIEF
Ninth Circuit Rules Parole Questions During Traffic Stops Are Constitutionally Valid
COURT CASE REFERENCE: United States v. Ramirez (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2024) 98 F.4th 1141
LEGAL UPDATES REFERENCE NO. CAC00155
RULES
It is not a Fourth Amendment violation to ask about a driver’s parole status during a traffic stop in that to so is a negligibly burdensome measure that is reasonably related to officer safety.  Conducting the mission of a traffic stop includes asking questions related to the officer’s safety, such as whether the person contacted is a convicted felon and whether he has any weapons with him.
FACTS
In July, 2020, Officers Dorin Buchanan and Patrick Marshall observed defendant Victor Ramirez speeding in a residential neighborhood, failing to stop at a stop sign, and not using his turn signal upon making a turn.  The officers recognized defendant as a gang member even before stopping him. Due to the observed traffic infractions, the officers made a traffic stop.  Officer Buchanan approached defendant and immediately initiated the verbal contact with: “What’s up my man? You on probation or parole?” Defendant responded that he was on parole.  When asked, “For what?”, defendant told the officer that it was, “For a firearm.”  Officer Buchanan followed up with a few more questions such as when it was he had last checked in with his parole officer, where he lived, whose car he was driving, and what he was doing in the area. During this exchange, Officer Buchanan could see that defendant had several gang-related tattoos. Based on the tattoos, Officer Buchanan knew that defendant was in an area claimed by rival gang members. Officer Buchanan later testified that it would be “uncommon” for a rival gang member to be in the area “without a firearm.”  Intending to conduct a parole search, Officer Buchanan instructed defendant to turn off the car.  He then asked whether he had a driver’s license while telling him not to attempt to reach for it.  Defendant told the officer that he did in fact have a license, although he didn’t have it with him at the time. Being cautious, Officer Buchanan told defendant to put his right hand on the back of his head and unbuckle his safety belt with his left hand. Officer Buchanan asked defendant if he had a gun (referred to as a “strap”). Defendant admitted that he did, and that it was in the glove compartment.  Upon removing defendant from his car, a loaded 9mm semiautomatic pistol was recovered from the glove compartment.  Upon confirming via the police computer system in the patrol car that defendant was in fact on parole, he was arrested.  Indicted by a federal grand jury for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (felon in possession of a firearm), defendant’s motion to suppress the gun was denied by the trial court.  Defendant therefore pled guilty and was sentenced to 63 months (five years, three months) in prison.  He subsequently appealed.