by Douglas Ankney
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, ruled that Jeremiah Paul’s conversation with Los Angeles Police Department Officer Charles Kumlander and Officer Helmkamp was not consensual based on the manner in which the officers approached Paul’s vehicle.
The following facts were taken from a hearing on a suppression motion that was filed by Paul. He was seated in his parked Prius in front of his home. He had just turned off the engine, but the headlights on the Prius remained on for several minutes afterward. Paul was speaking with a family member on his phone. The windows of the Prius were rolled up and the doors were closed.
Kumlander and Helmkamp were patrolling the neighborhood and observed the parked Prius with its headlights on and occupied. Kumlander parked his patrol car in the middle of the street with its headlights on. Kumlander testified that the occupant (later identified as Paul) moved lower in the seat and attempted to conceal himself when Kumlander shined his flashlight into the Prius. Kumlander observed Paul’s dreadlocks, and Kumlander was aware that a parolee resided in one of the nearby houses. Kumlander approached the driver’s side with his flashlight while Helmkamp approached the Prius on the passenger’s side and illuminated the vehicle with his flashlight.
Kumlander claimed the driver’s side door was partially opened and he began a casual conversation with Paul. During the conversation, Kumlander asked “any probation or parole?” Paul answered that he was on parole. The officers then searched the Prius and recovered a firearm inside.
Paul moved to suppress the evidence. He argued that while the officers may lawfully search him without a warrant due to his active parole status, the officers only learned of his active parole status subsequent to an unlawful detention. The trial court denied the suppression motion. Paul then pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm with a prior violent conviction. He timely appealed.
The Court observed the “Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v. Greenwood, 189 Cal. App. 4th 742 (2010). “A search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable per se under the Fourth Amendment unless it falls within one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” People v. Woods, 981 P.2d 1019 (Cal. 1999).
“An illegal detention that uncovers evidence is generally subject to the exclusionary rule, which dictates the unlawfully obtained evidence be suppressed as ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” People v. Kasrawi, 65 Cal. App. 5th 751 (2021). “It is well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent.” Woods.
“[C]onsensual encounters … are those police-individual interactions which result in no restraint of an individual’s liberty whatsoever—i.e., no ‘seizure,’ however minimal—and which may properly be initiated by police officers even if they lack any ‘objective justification.’” Wilson v. Superior Court, 670 P.2d 325 (Cal. 1983).
“Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, in some manner restrains the individual’s liberty, does a seizure occur. In order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure, a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that the person was not free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. This test assesses the coercive effect of police conduct as a whole, rather than emphasizing particular details of that conduct in isolation.” People v. Garry, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1100 (2007). “The test is not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer’s words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person.” Id.
Turning to the present case, the Court explained that the positioning of officers’ bodies blocked Paul from being able to drive away. Further, the officers’ bodies were so close to the vehicle that Paul could not open either car door without striking an officer. That is, Paul was unable to walk away from the encounter. Additionally, both officers approached the vehicle—one at each side of the car—and shined their flashlights into the windows at close range, which has been held to constitute a show of authority. See People v. Tacardon, 521 P.3d 563 (Cal. 2022); People v. Kasrawi, 65 Cal. App. 5th 751 (2021). The Court stated that the officers’ “coordinated action” is the type of behavior that “an objective person would expect to witness when being detained.” Thus, the Court concluded that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave this situation.
Additionally, Paul was legally parked and talking on his phone, so he could not reasonably decline to interact with the officers without suspending his phone conversation and engaging in at least a brief conversation with them, the Court noted. Again, the Court concluded that a reasonable person would believe that the officers required his attention and could not simply leave.
Finally, the Court stated that the fact the conversation between Paul and Kumlander was nonconfrontational “is not strong evidence to conclude that a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the encounter.” The Court explained that a person may be detained even when “the officers seemed calm, courteous, and used conversational tone.” Quoting In re Edgerrin J., 57 Cal. App. 5th 752 (2020). Thus, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the Court held that Paul’s interaction with the officers was not consensual and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment. See: People v. Paul, 99 Cal. App. 5th 832 (2024).  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login