By Raymond Hill  
Professor Emeritus, Santa Rosa Junior College  

“Beat Knowledge and Crimes at 24-Hour Gas Stations and Convenience Stores” 

Greater San Francisco Bay Area news outlets have recently reported on several crimes at 24-hour gas stations and convenience stores. According to the FBI’s National Incident Based Reporting System (9/27/2021), convenience stores are the fourth-ranked location for violent crimes and gas stations are the seventh.  

Various reasons can account for the higher rate of crime at convenience stores, including: 

• The small number of employees per store makes it difficult to stop or deter criminals. 

• The extended hours of many convenience stores present more opportunities when few customers and/or witnesses are present. 

• The smaller size of the stores makes it easy for criminals to quickly navigate the floor plan and enter and exit close to the cash registers 

• In some stores, most purchases are in cash as opposed to electronic transactions, leading to a relatively large amount of cash, often minimally secured, at any point. 

In the recent Legal Updates “From the Classroom” article “The Flight, Plus Rule and What Does It Mean to a Detention or Arrest” (LUPC Ref. #CAB00216 – 7/10/23), we discussed the value of “beat knowledge” in forming your reasonable suspicion to detain someone. Knowing your beat, what is ordinary and out of the ordinary, and translating that knowledge into a detention factor is a key Fourth Amendment component. 

Refresher on the Law 

Let’s take a look at a good refresher case that I have always found helpful in supporting your detentions in and around 24-hour locations: 

U.S. v. Glover (2011) 662 F. 3d 694 

At 0440 hours, two Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department police officers were patrolling near an all-night gas station. Both officers had patrolled this area for six years and were aware of high crime activity. In court, Officer Skipper testified to crime statistics in the Eastway Division: “Within the three months prior to the incident, we had over 300 larceny reports, over 100 vehicles stolen, 54 robberies, 17 kidnappings, 5 rapes and 4 homicides.” 

The officers observed that the station attendant, who usually stayed in a locked office, was outside near the pumps, kneeling and checking levels in the fuel tanks. They saw the defendant (Glover) standing at the rear corner of the station building. He was watching the attendant and pulled his head back and forth around the corner of the building several times “as if he were trying to hide or conceal himself,” one officer said. Officers drove to the rear of the station. By then, the defendant had left that location and was now standing two to three feet behind the crouched attendant. Believing a crime was about to occur, officers detailed the defendant, frisked him and found a gun in his pants pocket. A convicted felon, he convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. 

The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the detention and frisk. Justices ruled under the “totality of circumstances” there was reason to believe the defendant was planning to commit a robbery. The detention and frisk were “the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible harm and took limited steps to do so.” 

The court went onto explain why the defendant’s actions were consistent with reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to take place: 

1) Would-be robbers commit their crimes late at night or early in the morning when it is unlikely they would be observed by a passerby. “The fact these events took place at this late hour only compounds the suspiciousness of Glover’s behavior”; 

2) The defendant glancing around the corner, pulling his head back, and suddenly leaving his location. “Such nervous and evasive behavior supports the reasonableness of the officer’s belief that Glover was preparing to commit a crime”. 

3) A vulnerable target. “The Fourth Amendment does not preclude officers from taking modest steps to protect 24-hour gas stations, convenience stores or fast-food outlets from armed robberies...Officers can detain suspects for conduct that could have an innocent explanation in order to resolve the ambiguity.” 

Landmark Stop and Frisk Ruling 

The Glover case reminds me of this landmark “stop and frisk” case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: 

Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 US 1 

At 1430 hours, a Cleveland, Ohio, robbery detective, who had more than 20 years of experience and a strong familiarity with the area where the incident occurred, observed two people pacing in front of a jewelry store. They peered into the storefront window and repeatedly went to the side of the building and conferred. They also conferred with another person who left the scene. In the detective’s experience and training, the suspects were “casing” the store to commit a robbery.  

The subjects were detained and a pat-down located a revolver in Terry’s pocket. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that the stop and frisk was lawful for officers “to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for arrest.” The activity observed was consistent with the method of operation of “contemplating a daylight robbery and it was reasonable to assume the use of weapons during this type of crime.” 

Recent Case Clarifies Detention Issues 

My colleague Robert Phillips recently reported on this Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal case involving the Fourth Amendment and Qualified Immunity: 

Hopson v. Alexander, (9th Circ. 6/29/23, 2023 U.S. Lexis 15033, LUPC Ref. # CAC00108) 

In this case, a Gilbert, Az., detective had stopped at a gas station/convenience store for something to drink. While sitting in his unmarked police vehicle, he observed the following: 

A person in a vehicle was already backed into another parking spot. This individual “cran[ed] his neck” and “nervously” looked around repeating this behavior several times. He reparked his car several times, each time backing into a new parking space. He “turn(ed) his body 180 degrees in the vehicle “to get a good look at his surroundings” (based on the detective’s training and decade-plus of law enforcement experience, it appeared that an “abnormally nervous suspect was scouting around for police officers, video cameras or other means by which he could be detected” and that he was “trying to find a parking spot that would allow for a hasty exit”).  

The subject never got out of his car to make any purchase. Another subject, later identified as the plaintiff, Hopson, drove into the parking lot and parked alongside the first subject’s vehicle. The first individual got out of his car and into the plaintiff’s car. They conversed while appearing to exchange unknown items. The first subject went back to his car to retrieve something and then returned to the plaintiff’s car. The detective concluded that both were “casing” the gas station and that “an armed robbery was about to occur.” 

The detective called for backup and a subsequent detention and vehicle search revealed a loaded 9mm with extended magazine between the driver’s seat and the console of the plaintiff’s vehicle. He was a convicted felon. 

The Arizona trial courts (and a minority of Ninth Circuit’s dissenting justices) concluded that the officers did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a detention and vehicle search. However, a majority of the Ninth Circuit reasoned that there was sufficient cause for the detective to reasonably believe the subjects were casing the convenience store in preparation for committing a robbery. 

Hopson is Similar to the Terry Case 

The Terry v. Ohio case quoted herein is a “mirror” for the facts in this case. In fact, the majority of the Ninth Circuit used the words, “bear(s) a notable resemblance.” “The suspects’ actions were consistent with [the officer’s] hypothesis that these men were contemplating a daylight robbery – which, it is reasonable to assume, would be likely to involve the use of weapons.”  

Quoting from Phillips in his case summary: “The Ninth Circuit also hints very strongly that the trial court was wrong in ruling that the detention was illegal. The court all but says that not only was the detention of both Jones and Hopson lawful as a matter of law, but that the use of guns and handcuffs in detaining them – where it appeared that they were preparing to commit an armed robbery – was also lawful. Had the prosecution at the state trial court stage appealed the suppression of the gun and marijuana, we might not be discussing the issue here in a civil suit but rather in a direct appeal from the defendants’ potential conviction.” 

Show Your Beat Knowledge 

Beat knowledge is important! Explain it in your report. Explain it to the deputy district attorney. Explain it in your courtroom testimony at a motion to suppress. Based on your experience on patrol, what might seem like harmless behavior can be translated into a solid detention factor to investigate criminal activity.  

There is good case law to support your observations and opinion that a crime is about to occur.  

Your Fourth Amendment bible is Phillips’ Search & Seizure Update – 23rd Edition, available in the Special/Annual Updates section of the www.legalupdates.com website.  Note: This annual update (about 2k pages) is available only to our Professional subscribers.  If you haven't already done so, please consider upgrading to our Professional membership. 

Stay Safe, 

RH