CA Supreme court rules police cannot detain based on evasive behavior only.

[Rickybillegas]

So, a few days ago the CA supreme court in 'the people v Marion Flores' that police cannot (as far as i can decipher) detain or search based on evasive behavior only.

So far as I have read, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think there can be no doubt that many crimes are intervened by acting on 'suspicious' behavior.
We want the bad guys off the streets. That seems to be the number one job of law enforcement.
OTOH, I think there are a lot of abuses and over reach by over zealous cops and particularly in the case of minorities.
One way to put it; aren't most people nervous when a cop pulls up next to you, or starts walking towards you? Isn't your natural reaction to avoid even though you know of nothing wrong you're doing?
I mean; "Uh, oh, whatdidido wrong?" I'm not saying avoid the cops, I'm saying many people are paranoid with some justification.

So, who thinks this ruling is bad or good, and calgunners in law enforcement, how do you think this will affect the job for both bad guys and good guys?

PEOPLE v. FLORES (2024) | FindLaw

[Drivedabizness]

If a truly evidence/data-driven system is in place, officer performance can be tracked at both the individual and group level. Officers who have a high number of arrests that lead to convictions/low # of complaints can be recognized and used as an example. Likewise officers with problematic trends can be identified, retrained, counseled, etc. These folks have an incredibly stressful, dangerous job.I work with cops every day and I can tell you they feel like they are under attack. Conversely, no one wants bad cop to be able to abuse people.

[AlmostHeaven]

In my opinion, this binding precedent will serve only as an additional barrier between California and reducing crime down to civilized levels.

Just like when Washington implemented the no-pursuit rule, which led to criminals quickly learning that fleeing provides a solid chance of escaping consequences altogether, I fully expect the unscrupulous predators of society in California to utilize this ruling to invalidate legitimate charges on the basis of unlawful detainment and lack of probable cause.

[Rickybillegas]

If a truly evidence/data-driven system is in place, officer performance can be tracked at both the individual and group level. Officers who have a high number of arrests that lead to convictions/low # of complaints can be recognized and used as an example. Likewise officers with problematic trends can be identified, retrained, counseled, etc. These folks have an incredibly stressful, dangerous job.I work with cops every day and I can tell you they feel like they are under attack. Conversely, no one wants bad cop to be able to abuse people.

Although the 'defund the police' movement has subsided somewhat (it seems like), it's still out there and the sentiment is pretty widespread. All the occupation and rioting going on in campuses currently is adding fuel.
Laws are being proposed and some passed restricting policing. Cops (the good ones) need to be on alert, and are subject to a lot of scrutiny. A bad mistake could lead to a tragic result.
Another example, the recent law proposed that prohibits stops for minor infractions SB50. 'They' are not just going after us, they're going after cops too.

[AlmostHeaven]

Although the 'defund the police' movement has subsided somewhat (it seems like), it's still out there and the sentiment is pretty widespread. All the occupation and rioting going on in campuses currently is adding fuel.
Laws are being proposed and some passed restricting policing. Cops (the good ones) need to be on alert, and are subject to a lot of scrutiny. A bad mistake could lead to a tragic result.
Another example, the recent law proposed that prohibits stops for minor infractions SB50. 'They' are not just going after us, they're going after cops too.

Progressives want to simultaneously deny ordinary law-abiding citizens the ability to procure, possess, and carry effective means of self-defense (i.e. semi-automatic firearms equipped with large-capacity magazines) and restrain law enforcement from zealously prosecuting criminals.

I have a term for these goals - evil.

[NorCalBusa]

Can't help but consider that part of the problem is the overuse of suspicious, suspiciously and other forms of word in dispatcher/cop-speak, it is clearly catch-all. A car parked for 7 hours or someone in front of a store are hardly suspicious but that's what goes over the air. Instead, scratch using suspicious in any form and just describe the behaviors.

[IronsightsRifleman]

A man was detained for no other reason than he "looked suspicious". Well, he surely was. But allowing police to detain you with no better reasoning than that is un-American. There has to be a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime. That's a pretty low bar to cross and the police failed to do it in this instance.

[Rickybillegas]

A man was detained for no other reason than he "looked suspicious". Well, he surely was. But allowing police to detain you with no better reasoning than that is un-American. There has to be a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime. That's a pretty low bar to cross and the police failed to do it in this instance.

Yes, that's why I'm kind of on the fence with this one. Like I said, I want cops to get the bad guys off the street. But I want accountability and restraints on policing on the ground level. the way poster drivedabusiness describes it
could work ideally, but I doubt many or most departments work this smoothly. From my viewpoint there are still too many abuses. Maybe somebody here has better answers.

[Rickybillegas]

I think part of the answer is for police to do a better job of policing their own, and zero tolerance for officers who abuse. The 'buddy system' and the unions would probably not let this happen.

[AlmostHeaven]

In my opinion, the pendulum has swung too far after George Floyd in the direction of deference towards suspected criminals. However, I certainly do not endorse returning to 1990s-style unaccountable policing.

[Cowboy T]

A man was detained for no other reason than he "looked suspicious". Well, he surely was. But allowing police to detain you with no better reasoning than that is un-American. There has to be a reasonable suspicion of a specific crime. That's a pretty low bar to cross and the police failed to do it in this instance.

This is exactly the problem. Time after time we've seen or heard of cops with a "bully" attitude who seem to get their jollies from messing with people under color of law. This especially happens with racial minorities. It is not illegal to walk or drive another way when you see a cop. Last I checked, this is the United States of America, and we get to do that here. Unfortunately, enough times, cops have shown irresponsible use of their police powers. And for those who say, "there's a WAR on POLICE!"...bullcrap. There's a war on police *brutality* and *abuse of power*, yes, and there should be. The fact that their job is at times dangerous does not excuse abuse of their power. Period.

So, I'm glad to see this ruling. It's high time this "cops can do no wrong, just give 'em free reign" mindset be reined in some. This is one of the few times, it seems, that the CA Supreme Court actually did something right.

[AlmostHeaven]

For the record, I do not support unchecked law enforcement use-of-force and abusive practices, but I disagree with the assertion that Democratic cities have not engaged in a "war on police." Even in less-progressive states like Ohio and Virginia, I have personally noticed a marked shift where criminals have been getting away with increasingly brazen behavior over the past four years. Shameless shoplifting, vehicle smash-and-grabs, catalytic converter thefts, burglaries, carjackings, open drug dealing, gang violence, and murders have all increased.

Prior to the BLM protests/riots, I used to not even regularly carry a gun when running errands in the city. Now, I remain armed at every possible moment except when explicitly forbidden by law.

[Jess B. Guy]

I suggest folks read the decision. It really doesn't change anything. It only points out the standards which have existed for years. In this case, the standards weren't met.

[Rickybillegas]

I suggest folks read the decision. It really doesn't change anything. It only points out the standards which have existed for years. In this case, the standards weren't met.

I didn't read the entire decision, as the long winded legal content is too much for non-Lawyer me, so I'll take your word for it. What I did read more was the press write-ups. But even if what you say is true, it's still important in that it clarified previous codes in state supreme court and put police on further notice regarding on-the-ground policing. As you say, the standards were not met in this case, and probably a lot of others that never made it to any court of law. Most cops as are most of us folks are not Lawyers, and this landmark case will probably get attention in LEO class room discussions, if they haven't already.

[AlmostHeaven]

I didn't read the entire decision, as the long winded legal content is too much for non-Lawyer me, so I'll take your word for it. What I did read more was the press write-ups. But even if what you say is true, it's still important in that it clarified previous codes in state supreme court and put police on further notice regarding on-the-ground policing. As you say, the standards were not met in this case, and probably a lot of others that never made it to any court of law. Most cops as are most of us folks are not Lawyers, and this landmark case will probably get attention in LEO class room discussions, if they haven't already.

Realistically, most police officers do not understand the law better than highly informed citizens who participate in specialized forums. I hope but would not necessarily expect the average California law enforcement agency to provide regular retraining on the latest judicial developments.