By Holly Werris
WOODLAND, CA – A man was detained by a deputy for 15 minutes during what should have been a routine traffic stop, claimed the defense here in Yolo County Superior Court this week.
So, the routine traffic matter became a question of constitutional rights and prolonged detention—which the court ultimately agreed was the case.
“It was very clear it was a fishing expedition rather than a lawful stop,” Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig told the court.
The deputy claimed to pull the accused over for having expired registration, yet less than a minute into the interaction the deputy was asking whether or not the accused was on probation or parole.
The deputy’s only explanation for this was that the accused drove a broken-down car.
“They couldn’t provide a satisfactory answer,” DPD Craig said.
The defense noted when the deputy radioed dispatch nine minutes into the interaction and received the word that the accused was not on probation or parole, nor had any warrants, he did not cite the accused and allow him to leave. He instead chose to conduct a second search on the Yolo County Jail Database.
It was 11 minutes into the stop that the deputy asked the accused to exit the vehicle and proceeded to search the car, despite the accused refusing the search because he had open containers of alcohol inside.
“(The accused) did not, under any circumstances, consent to that search,” DPD Craig said.
Deputy District Attorney Caryn Warren argued the fear officers feel during a traffic stop is the explanation for the deputy’s actions.
“Traffic stops are one of the most dangerous incidents that an officer engages in,” she said. “What a scary situation for those officers to be placed in.”
The accused’s refusal to exit the vehicle the first four times also meant that he was resisting arrest, DDA Warren continued. She also argued the deputy had probable cause to search the accused’s vehicle because the accused allegedly said he had open containers inside, which is illegal if kept in the passenger seat.
However, the deputy had not seen any containers before searching the car, nor did he feel threatened by the accused at any point, argued DPD Craig, adding, “The officers testified that they did not feel any fear or threat of (the accused) during that stop.”
The public defender noted a driver using his rights during a traffic stop is also not a cause for resisting arrest, explaining, “It is true that that is often a threat that is lobbed at young Black men asserting their rights in a traffic stop,” adding the accused did comply with the deputy.
Judge Sonia Cortes found the search conducted by the deputy was in violation of the accused’s 4th Amendment rights and the stop did amount to a prolonged detention.
The judge said, “It was clear that at no point he gave consent to search his vehicle… That is why we do have the 4th Amendment—to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Although the defense requested all charges be dropped, the prosecution requested for the proceedings to be stayed to Dec. 1.
That deputy should be fired for racial profiling.