Case: In re L.G. - 2DCA suppresses evidence from an illegal search
Decided: 2/11/2025
Docket
Case Overview:
Procedural posture: Appeal from the superior court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress
Plaintiff-respondent: The People of the State of California
Defendant-appellant: L.G.
Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight case no.: B331298
Appeal from: Los Angeles Superior Court (Lawson, J.)
Advocates: Steven Torres for L.G.; Ryan M. Smith for the People
Facts:
Officers Victor Quezada and Diego Millan were patrolling Harbor City Crips gang territory after dark. Millan saw three young men standing on a sidewalk and recognized one—not defendant L.G.—as a gang member. The officers pulled up to the men in their marked cruiser. Officer Quezada tried to engage the men in conversation. L.G. did not respond. When Quezada directed questions at L.G., who was 15 years old, L.G. did not look at the officers. L.G. looked sideways and at the ground. The interaction lasted about a minute.
Millan and Quezada suspected L.G. was carrying illegal drugs or a gun. The two officers left the police cruiser. Quezada told L.G. and the others to “Step out to the street! Get your hands up!” L.G. “took off at a run, clutching his waistband as if he were holding a gun.” The officers caught up to L.G. and found that L.G. was carrying a gun.
Question:
(1) Did the officers detain L.G. and, if so, was the detention and subsequent search improper?
Answer:
(1) Yes, the officers detained L.G. Yes, the detention and search were improper.
Once the police said, “Step out to the street! Get your hands up!” and advanced toward L.G., “reasonable people in L.G.’s situation would not believe they were free to leave.” “The objective observer would conclude officers were getting out of the car for a reason beyond casual conversation.”
The officers lacked a particularized and objective basis for believing L.G. was breaking the law. L.G.’s nervousness was not enough. Being nervous and deliberately avoiding police interaction did not reasonably suggest criminal activity was afoot. The gang status of one of the other men—not L.G.—”was relevant but not a license to frisk his companions anytime and anywhere.” The fact that L.G. was eventually caught carrying a gun does not change the analysis.
Outcome:
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight reversed the judgment, vacated the adjudication, and remanded the matter with instructions to the superior court to enter a new order granting L.G.’s motion to suppress.
Justice Wiley authored the opinion, joined by Justices Stratton and Grimes.
Links:
Westlaw: 2025 WL 455479