Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 9, 2024 - Epoch Times

11:19

A Supreme Court Rules 7-0

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Amidst the backdrop of millions of illegal migrants entering the country, as well as a crime wave happening in most major cities, well, the Supreme Court of California just handed down a new ruling, saying that both police officers as well as sheriff's deputies are no longer allowed to detain people on the street just because those people were trying to evade the police.
	Meaning that a person trying to conceal himself from the police is no longer enough justification by itself for that person to be detained by the police.
	Let's go through the case together.
	Back in 2019, late at night, a man by the name of Marlon Flores was standing on the corner of a street in an area of Los Angeles which is known for heavy narcotics use as well as generally the heavy presence of gang activity.
	Then a police cruiser with two officers drove by and Mr. Flores walked over and tried to hide himself behind a parked car.
	Here is specifically how these events unfolded according to court documents.
	In May of 2019, around 10 p.m., Officer Guy and his partner, Michael Marino, were on patrol in the area of Mariposa Avenue.
	Officer Guy considered the location to be a known narcotics area and gang hangout.
	He had arrested someone in the vicinity the night before for narcotics crimes.
	As the officers drove by a cul-de-sac, they saw Flores standing alone in the street besides a Nissan parked at a red curb.
	Flores looked at the officers, walked around to the back of the car, and then ducked behind it.
	And so the officers pulled up, they parked behind this Nissan, and then for about a minute, Mr. Flores was observed hiding behind the Nissan, popping his head in and out, until eventually the officers got out of the cruiser and approached him.
	He was pretending to tie his shoes, and generally seeing this suspicious behavior, as well as the neighborhood and the time of day, the police officers detained Mr. Flores and conducted what's known as a Terry Stop.
	And in case you're not aware, here's what a Terry stop is, as well as how it generally came to be.
	Quote, "In the landmark 1968 ruling in Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that police can use the stop-and-frisk procedure under the U.S. Constitution.
	That established the concept of a Terry stop, which allows police to briefly detain a person based on a reasonable suspicion they are engaging in criminal activity." And so Mr. Flores was detained and had his hands placed in handcuffs.
	Now eventually, it was determined that the Nissan that was illegally parked belonged to Mr. Flores, the one that he was hiding behind.
	He allowed the officers to retrieve his wallet from the car, upon which time the officers found a drug pipe sitting out there in the open.
	Inside of his wallet, they found a folded up dollar bill containing meth, And then, in a backpack within the car, the officers found a loaded, unregistered handgun, which, just for your reference, is illegal to carry in the state of California.
	Mr. Flores was then arrested and charged.
	Now, at the lower court level, the judge ruled against Mr. Flores, writing the following in the ruling, quote, Mr. Flores dug down behind a car and later continually moved his hands, keeping them out of sight of the police as officers approached him.
	Mr. Flores claimed that he was tying his shoes.
	However, the officer would have valid suspicions if the individual picked an unlikely moment for the task, in the dark, just after seeing the police, and just after ducking once already, and if the person took an unusually long time at it.
	Mr. Flores was in a crouching position for a suspiciously long time, warranting police officers' decision to apprehend him.
	And as such, Mr. Flores was convicted on the gun charge after taking a plea deal and having the narcotics charge thrown away.
	However, he then appealed that decision to the California Court of Appeals.
	but in 2021, the appeals court also ruled against them, writing the following: "Prosecutors were not able to determine whether Mr. Flores was engaging in illegal drug activity, but that the trial court was right that together the facts justified this Terry stop.
	In combination with other factors, a reasonable officer had a reasonable basis for investigating further to resolve this ambiguity, because nervous and evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining whether suspicion is reasonable." And as such, the appeals court upheld the conviction.
	However, Mr. Flores went ahead and appealed again, this time to the state supreme court.
	And after roughly three years of legal back and forth, last Thursday, the state supreme court came back with a unanimous ruling in favor of Mr. Flores.
	Specifically, in a 7-0 decision, the State Supreme Court of California ruled that hiding yourself from the police, or just trying to avoid contact with the police, is not, by itself, enough justification to be detained.
	Quote, The fact that a person appears to be concealing him or herself, or acting nervously, cannot be the only reason for an officer to detain the person.
	Those actions can be relevant context, but there still needs to be reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
	Law enforcement officials may consider what they see in plain view, and they can approach people in public, engage them in consensual conversation, and take note of their appearance and behavior.
	However, there needs to be probable cause because the individual is constitutionally protected and empowered to go on his or her own way.
	Meaning, the State Supreme Court ruled that a person is well within their rights to just ignore the police and go on their merry way, as per the Fourth Amendment.
	Although, the State Supreme Court did make a special point of mentioning, in their majority opinion, that police officers do still have ways to deal with situations like with what happened with Mr. Flores.
	Here's what they wrote in the relevant portion of the majority opinion.
	Quote, Our conclusion does not leave officers without the means to follow up on behavior they view as calling for additional investigation.
	Flores was present in a high-crime area and repeatedly tried to avoid being seen by, or engaging with, the police.
	Those facts are certainly noteworthy.
	The officers would have been well within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment to continue to watch Flores as he stood on the street.
	They were entitled to approach Flores and engage him in consensual conversation.
	They could have asked if he needed assistance or had himself noted anything out of the ordinary in the vicinity.
	If they made additional observations while doing so, those observations may have changed the calculus.
	But Flores's mere refusal to cooperate did not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.
	And as such, Mr. Flores cannot go back to the lower court and attempt to have his conviction overturned.
	Now, on the one hand, the advocacy groups who were pushing this case forward over the last several years, they were quite pleased with this ruling, saying that it will help minorities from being racially profiled.
	For instance, one of the attorneys for Mr. Flores called this ruling a quote, vindication of the rights of minorities, adding that the outcome was possible because of the Racial Justice Act, a 2020 California law that prohibits discrimination in the state's criminal justice system based on a defendant's race, ethnicity, or national origin.
	On the flip side, however, you had the LA Police Protective League, which is a local police union, say that this ruling will lead to more crime in the state.
	Here's part of their statement.
	Quote, For most residents living in high crime neighborhoods, this is called good police work.
	Yet, in their infinite wisdom, California's out-of-touch Supreme Court overturned two lower court rulings that found the officers acted lawfully and sided with the drug and gun-possessing owner of the illegally parked car to further cement California's criminal justice system as the joke it is.
	Now, in terms of the next steps, it's not clear yet whether this ruling will be appealed Supreme Court, because just on the face of it, it appears that this California ruling directly contradicts the plain language of that earlier Supreme Court ruling, the one from 1968 in Terry v. Ohio.
	That was the one that established the police constitutionality of stop-and-frisk procedures in the first place.
	At the moment, there's no mention of an appeal from the relevant parties.
	We here at the Epoch Times, we did reach out to both the LA Police Union and the LA County Police Department for comment, but we have yet to hear back.
	Once we hear back, I'll let you know right away.
	Until then, I'll throw a link to the PDF version of the State Supreme Court ruling.
	You'll be able to find it down in the description box below if you want to dig into the weeds.
	And also, I'd love to know your thoughts.
	Do you think this ruling will make it more difficult for cops to do their jobs, especially when they're already dealing with gang-infested streets as well as a hostile California legal environment?
	Or do you believe that this ruling is a net positive, because after all, it does secure the rights of U.S.
	citizens from being detained for simply trying to avoid the police?
	And also, what do you make of the claim that this type of a ruling helps minorities specifically?
	Because, at least for me, it's always a big question mark how you can say that taking criminals off the street hurts the people who are living on those streets.
	I mean, as a practical matter, if you removed the meth and illegal gun-carrying criminals off the streets where minorities happen to live, well, I would imagine that the law-abiding people in that neighborhood would probably actually really appreciate it a lot.
	And so what do you think?
	Do these stop and frisk policies in general do more harm than good, or vice versa?
	I'd love to know your thoughts.
	Please leave them in the comments section below.
	I'll be reading through them later tonight, as well as throughout the whole week.
	All right, just to pause here for a super quick moment.
	Listen, it's obvious that the financial system is not looking too great.
	After being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many, many years now, Well, the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future, and in that process, unfortunately, it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it.
	And so, consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington DC and Wall Street, physical gold and silver.
	And the best company to use, in my opinion, is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who I should mention is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer.
	And besides myself, they have thousands of five-star reviews from other Americans, and they also have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
	And working with them is rather simple.
	They have a huge selection of coins, bars, and rounds to choose from.
	They have super friendly staff who you can call and they can set up either gold delivery directly to your doorstep or they can even set you up in a gold IRA.
	And then lastly, best of all, if you tell them that Roman sent you, they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase.
	So give them a call.
	The number is 866-242-2352.
	That's 866-242-2352, or you can simply text Roman to 65532.
	I'll also throw a link to their webpage.
	It'll be down there in the description box below.
	And then lastly, if you enjoyed today's content and you're just thinking to yourself, man, I love this episode.
	I just wish Roman would publish more content every week.
	Well, you're in luck.
	Because I do.
	Over on EpicTV, our awesome no-censorship video platform, I publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter every single week, usually on topics that are unfortunately too spicy for here on YouTube.
	All those episodes I should mention are properly sourced, they're completely fact-based, it's just that the topics we cover Well, they're just not welcome here on YouTube.
	They have an algorithm that just crawls our speech, and if they pick out certain keywords, regardless of the fact that everything is properly sourced, and we're just reporting news, it'll just pick out certain keywords, and it'll restrict the episode's reach, it might suspend the episode, sometimes it might even give a strike to the channel or suspend the entire account.
	And then you're left fighting a system, sometimes without even a human on the other end, it's just an AI system that you're trying to appeal to, and that's just the situation of the we're publishing on YouTube.
	That's just the situation we'll find ourselves in.
	And unfortunately, that's news publishing in the year 2024, which is exactly why we set up Epic TV, a platform where we don't have to self-censor and we can just report the facts without having to think about what some latte-sipping kid over in Silicon Valley will think about him once he reviews our content.
	And so, if you want to check it out, we're running an awesome promotional sale, just $0.25 a week for the whole year, which, if you do the math, works itself out to just be a single dollar a month.
	And so, if you want to take advantage of that sale, the link will be right there at the top of the description box below.
	You can just click on that link.
	It'll take you to the sale page where you can try The Epoch Times for, again, just a single dollar a month.
	I hope you check it out.
	And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epoch Times.

▲