Motion to Suppress Granted Based on Unlawful Detention

On the evening of March 7, 2020, at about 9:00 p.m., Los Angeles Police Department Officers Kumlander and Helmkamp were patrolling a residential neighborhood in the Los Angeles area.  A Toyota Prius caught their attention because it was parked with its lights on and appeared to be occupied.

Officer Kumlander drove his patrol car alongside the Prius and stopped.  Officer Helmkamp, who was in the passenger seat, then illuminated the Prius with his flashlight.  There was a male in the vehicle, Mr. Jeremiah Paul.  Officers described Mr. Paul as attempting to conceal himself by slouching in his seat.  Mr. Paul had dreadlocks.  Officer Kumlander patrolled the area regularly and knew a parolee lived across the street from where the Prius was parked.

Office Kumlander then backed up the patrol car and parked it in the middle of the street with its headlights on to illuminate the Prius.  The two officers then exited their vehicle with one officer walking up to each side of the car.  Both officers then shone their respective flashlight from opposite sides into the car at Mr. Paul while each officer was standing just outside the car.

Office Kumlander then searched the Prius and seized a firearm inside the Prius.

Mr. Paul was then arrested and charged in the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Courts Building (CCB) in downtown Los Angeles with possession of a firearm by a person with a prior violent conviction, Penal Code § 29900(a)(1).  

Mr. Paul then filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the firearm, arguing that he was unlawfully detained based on the totality of the circumstances.  While he conceded the search was lawful based on his parole status.

The trial court judge, Richard Kemalyan, who our office regards as an extremely good judge, denied the motion, but acknowledged that his ruling was “a very close issue.”  The key to his ruling was finding that Mr. Paul’s encounter with the police was consensual up until the point when he disclosed his parole status.  Judge Kemalyan listed six factors in support of this: 1) the patrol car was not blocking the Prius and nothing prevented the Prius from leaving; 2) the officer’s flashlights were the only illumination of the Prius; the officers did not use their spotlight or headlights; 3) the officers did not approach the Prius at a brisk pace; 4) the officers did not touch Paul before he stated he was on parole; 5) two officers were present; and 6) Officer Kumlander’s tone in addressing Mr. Paul was casual and conversational before Mr. Paul stated he was on parole.  

Since the encounter was consensual, probable cause for a search was not required and a warrant also was not required.  People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 668, 674.  Since Mr. Paul could have left before the search and did not, he consented to the search, or so the logic goes.

Mr. Paul then appealed Judge Kemalyan’s ruling to the California Court of Appeal for the Second District, which reversed Judge Kemalyan.

The Second District determined that the encounter was not consensual.  The appellate court found that the initial encounter was unlawful based on the totality of the circumstances.  The evidence was that Mr. Paul could not have exited his vehicle with Officer Kumlander standing just a few feet from the driver’s side door and Officer Helmkamp standing outside the other car door, effectively surrounding the car.  Moreover, both officers showed an objective display of authority by shining their flashlights into the Prius at close range from opposite angles.  Finally, Mr. Paul could not have reasonably declined to interact with the officers without at least engaging in a brief conversation with them.  An objective person would not believe that he or she was free to simply start driving away with both officers standing where they were.

Therefore, the appellate court reversed the judgment on the motion and vacated the conviction.  The matter was then remanded to the trial court with an order to grant the motion to suppress.

We present this summary because it exemplifies a situation we have seen several times in police encounters.