Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/24/638.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:15:43+00:00

Document:
Paul N. Halvonik, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Clifton R. Jeffers, Chief Assistant State Public Defender, Philip A. Schnayerson and Philip M. Brooks, Deputy State Public Defenders, for Defendant and Appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Gloria F. DeHart and Thomas A. Brady, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This court must decide whether an officer may constitutionally detain a citizen because he is a white man who happens to be with a group of black men in a black residential area at 8:37 p.m.
At 8:37 p.m. on Monday, December 22, 1975, Officers Philip F. Povey and James Hunt of the San Francisco Police Department were in a [24 Cal. 3d 642] marked patrol car about 50 yards from the entrance to a residential complex at 1127 Pierce Street. Officer Povey observed appellant (a Caucasian), a black woman, and two or three black men come out of an elevator at "the projects."
The officer testified his attention was drawn to appellant because "he was white with a group of blacks." In order to try "to show that a white person in this area of the night [sic] is very suspicious in nature, that it is criminal activity," the prosecution elicited testimony from Officer Povey that in his three and one-half years as a police officer in this "predominantly black" area, he (the officer) had "never observed a white person in the projects or around the projects on foot in the hours of darkness or [sic] for innocent purpose." The officer elaborated that he had arrested 20 white persons fn. 1 for narcotics offenses occurring "in the evening, night time, in the hours of darkness;" that he had contacted but had not arrested six other Caucasians who "were approaching the projects in order to purchase narcotics;" and that he had encountered an unspecified number of white persons who were "victims of armed robberies or strong armed robberies."
Officer Povey observed that appellant and the group of blacks were talking as they walked to a stairway which led to the parking lot where the patrol car was located. When they looked in the direction of the police car, they stopped, turned around, and went back to the elevator, which had closed. The individuals returned to the stairway and "formed like a huddle of some sort," and the officer noticed they were conversing. Two of the blacks walked away from the group and "returned back to the group as if one individual, black male, had called them back." The conversation continued.
Officer Povey decided "something was wrong and ... thought either narcotics or weapons were involved, due to the hour and a white male being in the projects with these other people." He radioed for other units "to come in and try to seal the area off."
[3a] The central issue in the present case involves the first two prongs of this three-part test, i.e., whether the facts known to Officer Povey justified his conclusion that unusual activity was afoot and was related to crime. The officer consistently testified that his decision to detain was based upon "the hour and a white male being in the projects with these other people," explaining that appellant was a Caucasian in a predominantly black area where the officer had never observed a white person "on foot in the hours of darkness ... for innocent purpose."
 Initially, the fact that appellant was a white man could raise no reasonable suspicion of crime. A person's racial status is not an "unusual" circumstance and the presence of an individual of one race in an area inhabited primarily by members of another race is not a sufficient basis to suggest that crime is afoot. Freedom to travel and to associate are fundamental rights in this state, and the suggestion that their exercise can [24 Cal. 3d 645] contribute to a lawful seizure of one's person under these circumstances is both illogical and intolerable.
 No reasonable suggestion of criminality is added by the fact it was dark when the officer observed appellant. Strictly speaking, the "nighttime factor" fn. 5 is not "activity" by a citizen, and this court has warned that this factor "should be appraised with caution" (People v. Superior Court (Kiefer) (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 807, 825 [91 Cal. Rptr. 729, 478 P.2d 449, 45 A.L.R.3d 559]) and that it has, at most, "minimal importance" in evaluating the propriety of an intrusion (People v. McReynolds, supra, 8 Cal. 3d 655, 658). In the present case, the time at which the detention occurred (8:37 p.m.), while falling during darkness in winter, is simply not a late or unusual hour nor one from which any inference of criminality may be drawn. (Accord, People v. Lathan (1974) 38 Cal. App. 3d 911, 915 [113 Cal. Rptr. 648] ["... 10:15 p.m. is hardly a late or unusual hour."].) An individual in public at such times does not reasonably suggest crime is afoot.
Respondent also argues that this detention was justified because of the assertedly suspicious behavior of appellant and his black companions. However, as has been noted previously, Officer Povey himself repeatedly stated that the group was suspicious because of "the hour and a white male being in the projects with these other people."  A detention may not be justified after the fact on a basis not relied on by the officer. This would countenance a detain-now-justify-later approach to police instructions which is contrary to the constitutional requirements that protect a citizen against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The conduct observed by Officer Povey involved animated conversation among four or five persons who had just left an apartment building, each leaving to go in different directions. Appellant walked briskly toward a nearby street. While the group was together, they were either talking, walking, or in a "huddle." Nothing was being concealed, disposed of, exchanged, or even carried. When they "huddled," they did so away from the elevator lobby and in plain view of the police officers. When they separated, they walked away on public sidewalks with no attempt to avoid the lighted, open portions of the area. There is little that is "furtive" about such behavior.
As Moore suggests, to accept the Attorney General's argument would also undermine the detention rules of the Fourth Amendment. In our society, private individuals are free to conduct their own lives, seeking to mingle with or to avoid whomever they please. They certainly are under no legal duty to submit to the attentions of another private person. Unlike a private party, however, a police officer does have the power to insist upon an encounter -- that is, an officer has the power to "detain" -- but only when he or she has adequate cause. Lacking such a basis, an officer may not detain an individual, and the individual, unless he or she is properly detained and so notified, is as free to avoid the officer as to avoid any other person. To hold that the mere exercise of this liberty justifies a detention would be tantamount to holding that an officer may insist upon an encounter without adequate cause.
It requires no novel doctrine of law to reject respondent's suggested inference. "The courts have ... continually condemned any state practice which imposes adverse treatment on individuals for exercising constitutional rights intended to protect against such adversity. ..." [24 Cal. 3d 649] (People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 219, 225 [101 Cal. Rptr. 860, 496 P.2d 1228].) Indeed, in numerous contexts analogous to detention, this court has held that an outright refusal to cooperate with police officers cannot create adequate grounds for an intrusion which would otherwise be unjustifiable. fn. 9 No reason is suggested why this principle does not apply with equal force to detentions. If the right to be free from unjustified detentions is lost merely by seeking to avoid such encounters, then the right is meaningless; it would exist only to the extent it was not exercised. Such a conclusion is unacceptable.
To reach what they perceive to be an act of racial discrimination, the majority misstate the question presented by this case.
The question confronting us clearly is not "whether an officer may constitutionally detain a citizen because he is a white man who happens to be with a group of black men in a black residential area at 8:37 p.m." (Ante, p. 641.) Were this truly the question, our court would be unanimous in answering "No." However, other circumstances existed -- in addition to that recited by the majority -- leading the officers to detain and arrest defendant for being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm. (Pen. Code, § 12021.) The others, while mentioned in part by the majority in their statement of facts, are effectively ignored in later framing and analyzing the legal issue presented by the record.
Before discussing other factors supporting the detention, should we not dispassionately consider what the majority characterize as impermissible racial discrimination? Officer Povey had patrolled this black residential area of San Francisco for more than three years. With the exception of robbery victims, he testified he had never encountered a white person in the area on foot after dark for an "innocent purpose." White persons he had encountered were usually there to purchase narcotics. Of 500 arrests the officer had made, 20 were of whites -- all for narcotics offenses. In brief, in Officer Povey's unfortunate experience, a white person does not risk entering this area on foot after dark unless to engage in unlawful activity.
Now this is a horribly distressing proposition. We deplore the conditions of urban life manifested in this record. However, in upholding our duty as an appellate court to view the evidence in light most favorable to the prevailing party below, we must accept the officer's testimony. To not do so in this case perpetrates a cruel hoax. For by closing our eyes to the record and by restricting law enforcement activity in this neighborhood, do we not condemn its law abiding residents to further inhumanity?
Let us turn to the circumstances justifying the detention -- the group's backstairs behavior and defendant's flight.
Not mentioned is the fact that the group, having just gotten out of the elevator, immediately sought to reenter it after looking in the officers' direction. Omitted is the fact that when the group huddled, following their Keystone attempt to reboard the elevator, they looked in the officers' direction "every so often." Neglected is the fact that when one black man walked away from the group, in the opposite direction from the officers, "[h]e constantly was looking over his shoulder" at the policemen. Missed is the fact that when the officers advanced "maybe two steps" toward the group it "fragmented." Against this background, the significance of defendant's gait -- characterized by the majority as "brisk" but by Officer Povey as a "very quick walk, almost a run" -- is apparent, all suggesting judicial revisionism.
In denying the suppression motion, the trial judge concluded the detention was not based solely on the racial factor now isolated by the majority. The judge quite properly added that had he been asked to uphold the detention on that basis alone, he would have thrown the case out "as fast as those doors could swing."
In addition, in my view, the pat-down search for weapons was also proper under the circumstances. The officer testified that "there were numerous guns on the street at this time during this period. ..." Indeed, he and his partner had recovered "at least five weapons during this period [i.e., one week] in this particular area." Because it was at night in a high-crime area, the officer could reasonably believe on the basis of his recent experience that the suspects might be armed, and he so testified. A precautionary pat-down search seems to me entirely reasonable as a minimum protection against a surprise assault. As properly noted by Justice Elkington, "Where a police officer in the light of his experience concludes that a person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous he is entitled for the protection of himself and others to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [Citations.]"
In the present case, this pat-down search produced a loaded "six shot .38 Special revolver," confirming the officer's strong suspicion that defendant might be armed.
FN 1. Officer Povey said he had made approximately 500 total arrests during his assignment in the area, primarily for narcotics, weapons, or robbery.
FN 2. Officer Povey testified that approximately four minutes had passed since he first observed the group leaving the elevator.
FN 3. Hereinafter, unless otherwise specified, the term "Fourth Amendment" as used in this opinion refers to both our state and federal guarantees against unreasonable seizures.
FN 5. People v. McReynolds (1973) 8 Cal. 3d 655, 658 [105 Cal. Rptr. 691, 504 P.2d 915].
Some other problems with the "high crime area" justification appear in the cases. Often, the courts have been told in conclusory terms that an area has a "high crime rate" without being advised of the basis for the conclusion or of the nature of the crime or crimes involved. (Cf., People v. Lathan, supra, 38 Cal.App.3d at p. 915.) Or, the "area" to which a "high crime rate" label has been attached may be a large one, without any attempt being made to show that that overall crime rate is valid in the particular location in question. (Cf., ibid.) On other occasions, it is abstractly asserted that an area has a high crime rate without showing how the allegedly suspicious activity involved in the particular case is related to the type of activity upon which that crime rate estimate is based. To the extent such foundational matters are lacking, courts cannot logically be expected to accord considerable weight to this factor.
Finally, there is as yet no consistent or predictable agreement as to what "rate" of crime is a "high" one for this purpose. While it may be valid to say that one burglary a year in a neighborhood is too many, as a practical matter attaching a high crime label under such circumstances would do little to differentiate one location from another in any meaningful way.
FN 9. See, e.g., People v. Scott (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 242, 250 [128 Cal. Rptr. 39, 546 P.2d 327]; People v. Wetzel (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 104, 108-109 [113 Cal. Rptr. 32, 520 P.2d 416]; People v. Miller, supra, 7 Cal.3d at page 225; Gallik v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 855, 861 [97 Cal. Rptr. 693, 489 P.2d 573]; People v. Collins (1970) 1 Cal. 3d 658, 664 [83 Cal. Rptr. 179, 463 P.2d 403]; Tompkins v. Superior Court, supra, 59 Cal.2d at page 68.
If the showings made in these cases were adequate to warrant a detention, then precious little freedom from detention would be left to residents of this state, and our law requiring "substantial circumstances to justify the detention and questioning of persons on the street" would be hollow. (Cf. People v. Moore, supra, 69 Cal.2d at p. 683.) Clearly, that is not the situation. The results of the cited Court of Appeal decisions are inconsistent with the results of the entire line of detention decisions of this court -- culminating in In re Tony C. -- and are hereby disapproved.
FN 11. In view of the conclusion that appellant's detention was unconstitutional, it is not necessary to reach the issue of the legality of the pat-down.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12021
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.