by Anthony W. Accurso

The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, overturned the denial of a defendant’s suppression motion by ruling that the officers’ show of force meant the encounter was non-­consensual and that the defendant’s attire was insufficient to justify the detention. 

Just before midnight on July 12, 2021, Albert Jackson was sitting in an SUV that was either “a Range Rover or a Land Rover” in Los Angeles on the south side of 109th Street between Avalon and San Pedro. Officers Joseph Chavez and Jebert Ybanez saw him “seated kind of awkwardly in the driver’s seat” with “a big jacket on” in “midsummer,” which Chavez later described as “kind of odd … for the temperature.” Considering the particular block on which the vehicle was parked, Chavez suspected that it may have been stolen and that Jackson “could be concealing something” under the puffy jacket he was wearing.

The officers parked their squad car “within a few feet of Jackson’s open driver’s side door, leaving [only] enough room that, in the officer’s opinion, perhaps he ‘could have squeezed out.’” Ybanez exited the squad car and stood at Jackson’s door with a flashlight “maybe in a couple of seconds,” while Chavez went rapidly to the passenger side, also shining a flashlight at Jackson.

The officers became suspicious of Jackson “pretty early on in the contact,” and, “[a]fter about 10 seconds, Chavez spied a gun, called it out, backup arrived, and police arrested Jackson.”

Jackson was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the detention was unlawful. The People argued that the conversation was consensual until Chavez spotted the gun, requiring no justification for detention.

Jackson’s attorney noted the weather that night was in the “low to mid 60s, and “[t]here is no shortage of Angelinos who readily wear jackets when the weather is in this range.” Defense counsel also argued that the “officers were suspicious of an African-­American man in a high-­end vehicle” and made the “assumption [] that it must be stolen.” 

The magistrate denied the motion. Jackson pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment. He timely appealed. 

The Court began its analysis by noting the distinction between a consensual encounter and a detention, i.e., “detentions require justification.” See People v. Tacardon, 521 P.3d 563 (Cal. 2022). On the other hand, consensual encounters do not require justification. Id. However, a consensual encounter can become a detention “if an officer’s physical force or show of authority restrains someone’s liberty in some way” to the extent that “in view of all of the circumstances, reasonable people in those shoes would not believe they are free to leave.” Brendlin v. California (2007) 551 U.S. 249.

The Court observed that the “officers pulled their car within a few feet of Jackson’s open driver’s side door,” which “boxed Jackson in.” The Court stated that a reasonable person would not risk banging up the police car, which forced him to remain inside the vehicle. 

Although there was no car in front of Jackson’s vehicle, “[o]nce the officers displayed their authority as they did … a reasonable person would have equated driving forward with flouting the officer’s show of authority,” according to the Court.

The officers boxed Jackson in by positioning themselves on both sides of the vehicle. Quoting People v. Paul (2024) 99 Cal. App. 5th 832, the Court continued, the “officers’ approach is exactly the kind of coordinated action that an objective person would expect to witness when being detained.” 

The Court also concluded that the rationale provided by the officers was insufficient to justify Jackson’s detention on these facts. “Wearing what someone perceives is a big bulky jacket on what feels to be a hot humid night does not lead an officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot,” the Court chided. Further, the Court reasoned that it “is natural for someone to look surprised, nervous, and uncomfortable when police appear out of the dark, park too close for easy exit, surround your car, and shine flashlights on you.” 

The Court concluded that the officers’ observations failed to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, so Jackson’s detention was unlawful. Thus, the Court ruled that Jackson was unlawfully seized before Chavez spotted the gun.

Accordingly, the Court vacated Jackson’s conviction and plea and remanded with instructions to grant his suppression motion. See: People v. Jackson, 100 Cal. App. 5th 730 (2024).   

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login