Prolonged Detention After Traffic Stop for Paper Plates

In May 2021, Sacramento Police Officer Owen Anstess saw defendant Anterion Dantelamar Suggs driving a car with only paper plates displayed in violation, he thought, of Vehicle Code § 5200.  Section 5200 requires a car to have license plates on the front and the rear of a car.

Since Officer Anstess did not see any registration or recent purchase documents displayed, he initiated a traffic stop.  Officer Anstess would not have stopped the car if he had seen the paperwork displayed in the window as required by law.

When Officer Anstess walked up to the car to speak with Mr. Suggs, he noticed that the car had the registration documents attached to the front window, as required.

In a later motion to suppress hearing, Anstess testified that the display of these documents satisfied the legal requirements for vehicles with paper license plates.

Nonetheless, Officer Anstess then questioned Mr. Suggs about the purchase of the vehicle and Mr. Suggs provided the paperwork.  As he reviewed the paperwork, Officer Anstess asked Mr. Suggs where he and his passenger were headed, returned the paperwork and then asked for Mr. Suggs’ driver’s license, which Mr. Suggs provided.  Officer Anstess then asked the passenger for her identification, which he provided and asked, “Is this necessary?”

Officer Anstess responded that he pulled over the car because he saw paper plates and he did not see the paperwork in the vehicle’s window.

Officer Anstess then asked Mr. Suggs if there was anything illegal in the car, if he or his passenger were on parole or probation, and whether he or his passenger had been previously arrested.  Mr. Suggs and his passenger answered all the questions.

Officer Anstess then asked if he could search the vehicle and Mr. Suggs declined.

Officer Anstess then went back to his patrol vehicle and apparently called back to the station.  Officer Anstess then returned to Mr. Suggs’ vehicle and told him that both he and his passenger had suspended licenses and that the passenger was on probation for possession of a firearm, so the officer was going to conduct a probation search of the car.

During the search, Officer Anstess found a concealed firearm, ammunition, a digital scale and a cigarette box containing 30 pills of methamphetamine.  Suggs and his passenger were then arrested.

The Sacramento District Attorney’s Office charged Mr. Suggs with possession of a concealed firearm (Penal Code § 25400(a)(1)), possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell (Health & Safety Code § 11378) and possession of methamphetamine while armed with a firearm (Health & Safety Code § 11370.1(a)).

Mr. Suggs then moved to suppress the firearm, the scale and the methamphetamine because the detention of him was unduly prolonged.  He argued that the allowable duration for the stop ended when Officer Anstess saw that the reason for the stop, the paperwork in the windshield for the car’s purchase, was seen. 

The trial court judge in Sacramento County Superior Court denied the motion and Mr. Suggs accepted a plea bargain to misdemeanor possession of the concealed firearm. The judge sentenced him to 90 days in county jail.

Mr. Suggs then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the Third Appellate District Court, which agreed with Mr. Suggs.  It merits mention that normally, an appeal of a misdemeanor would go to the appellate division of the superior court, but here, Mr. Suggs’ appeal went to the Third Appellate District because the possession of a concealed firearm was originally charged as a felony.

The Third District explained that the “tolerable duration [of the traffic stop] is determined by the seizure’s ‘mission’ – to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop.”  Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348, 354.   The appellate court explained that once Officer Anstess saw the temporary registration documents when he walked up to the car to speak with Mr. Suggs, his initial reasonable suspicion for the Vehicle Code violation was completely dispelled and he had no basis for writing a ticket.

Officer Anstess, the appellate court noted (and contrary to Mr. Suggs’ argument on appeal) that Officer Anstess was not required to walk away.  He was permitted to speak to the driver to tell him why he stopped the car.  United States v. McSwain (10th Cir. 1994) 29 F. 3d 558, 561-562.

What he was not permitted to do was prolong the stop by conducting inquiries at finding evidence of criminal wrongdoing separate and apart from the perceived violation.  Rodriguez, supra, at 355 and at 357.  Officer Anstess’ seizure of Mr. Suggs at that point became illegal and all evidence seized thereafter was a Fourth Amendment violation.

The Third District therefore reversed the ruling on the motion to suppress and reversed the judgement.

We bring this summary to the reader’s attention because traffic stops for paper plates are common and it is good to know when the stop becomes illegally prolonged.