WOODLAND, CA – On Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Yolo County Superior Court, the prosecution argued that the stop and search of a man on postrelease community supervision (PRCS) was lawful, despite no traffic violation being committed.
The man, who was not named in court proceedings, faces two misdemeanor charges for unlawful possession of a controlled substance and drug paraphernalia. He was pulled over during a traffic stop on April 13, 2025, and searched pursuant to a PRCS search clause. A subsequent vehicle search also led to the discovery of paraphernalia.
Deputy District Attorney Adrienne Chin-Perez questioned Officer Hannah Costar about the events leading up to the arrest. Officer Costar testified that she had previously stopped the man roughly a year earlier but had not seen him since.
While on patrol, Costar noticed a car with temporary tags. After running the tags, she saw that the vehicle was registered to the same name as the man she had previously stopped. She noted that another officer had run the same name five days prior but chose not to make a stop because he did not recognize it.
Officer Costar, however, proceeded with the stop, stating she intended to conduct an “investigative search” based on her prior knowledge of the man. She activated her overhead lights and shined them into the vehicle. The man complied, pulling over and providing identification.
After contacting dispatch, Costar confirmed the man was still on PRCS and subject to search. She called for backup, placed the man in handcuffs, and detained him in her patrol vehicle while she and the second officer searched the car, locating paraphernalia.
During cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender James Bradford pressed Officer Costar on her justification for the stop. She admitted the man had not committed any traffic violation, and that the sole reason for the stop was her recognition of his name.
DPD Bradford argued the stop was unreasonable and the search arbitrary, asserting that an officer’s “hunch” did not meet the legal standard required to justify a stop and search under the Fourth Amendment.
Judge Samuel McAdam disagreed, ruling that there was “more than reasonable suspicion” and that the stop was lawful. He praised Officer Costar for her “good memory” and “top-rate police work” in identifying the man.
While reviewing the man’s criminal history and drug treatment record, Judge McAdam remarked, “We’ve got a severe drug addict on our hands here,” and said the man had “been using drugs and abusing alcohol his whole life.”
The judge granted the man outpatient treatment and released him on supervised own recognizance (SOR), with the condition that he enroll in a drug treatment program. The man thanked the judge and said he would try to do better.
Judge McAdam replied, “I know you’ll try, but that may not be good enough.”
The man is scheduled to return to court on July 24, 2025, for a trial-setting conference.
