Use of Spotlights: When Does a Detention Occur?

MUNA BUSAILAH
Partner
Stone Busailah, LLP

Question: Does the shining of an officer’s spotlight on a person, without the red and blue emergency lights, constitute a detention?

Answer: Generally, no. The use of a spotlight will not, standing alone, constitute a detention. However, it will be considered in the totality of the circumstances. This article will explore the issue in People v. Leon Tacardon, 14 Cal. 5th 235 (2022) CA Supreme Court.

Facts: Around 2045 hours, Grubb was patrolling a residential neighborhood in an area known for narcotics sales and weapons possession. He drove past a BMW parked in front of a residence and saw it was occupied by three people. As he drove past, Grubb made eye contact with the driver, Tacardon. Grubb made a U-turn, parked about 15 to 20 feet behind the BMW and turned his spotlight on. He did not activate the siren, his emergency lights or issue any commands to the occupants. He stayed in his patrol car for approximately 15 seconds while he put out his location and the license plate to dispatch and then he approached the BMW at a walking pace without drawing his weapon.

Grubb used his flashlight to check the passenger compartment of the car. In plain view, he saw two small, clear plastic bags that contained what he believed to be marijuana. He asked Tacardon for his identification and if he was on probation/parole, to which Tacardon admitted he was on probation. A search of the car yielded 24 ounces of marijuana, 76 hydrocodone pills and $1,904 in cash. Tacardon was arrested and charged with possession for sale. Tacardon asked the court to suppress the evidence recovered, arguing that the use of Grubb’s spotlight constituted an illegal detention. The Superior Court agreed, granted Tacardon’s motion and dismissed the charges.

Discussion: The issue here is whether Tacardon was detained, meaning restrained by means of physical force or show of authority. Courts have been split on whether the use of a spotlight is a large enough “show of authority” that would cause a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave. The California Supreme Court has resolved this issue.

In situations involving a show of authority, a person is detained when, “in view of all the circumstances . . . a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter, and if the person actually submits to the show of authority” (People v. Brown, 61 Cal.4th 968, 974 [2015]).

In Brown, the court did not create a rule stating the use of emergency lights near a parked car will always constitute a detention and noted, because someone whose car had broken down on the highway might reasonably believe the officer is stopping to render aid or warn other motorists of the potential hazard. Instead, the use of emergency lights must be considered in the totality of the circumstance in each individual incident.

The court noted some examples of circumstances that could establish a detention, including:

• The presence of multiple officers
• Displaying a weapon
• Physically touching a person
• Using the patrol car to block movement
• Commanding language and tone of voice
• The use of the siren

Some examples of when a spotlight did or did not constitute a detention follow:

• In People v. Franklin, 192 Cal.App.3d 935 (1987), the court found no detention when an officer pulled behind a person walking and shined a spotlight on him because the officer didn’t block the person’s way nor gave any verbal commands.
• Likewise, in S. v. Campbell-Martin, 17 F.4th 807, 811-812 (8th Cir. 2021), the court found no detention where an officer parked two spots away from the defendant’s car, shined a spotlight on it and approached on foot.
• However, in S. v. Delany, 955 F.3d 1077, 1079-80, 1082-83 (D.C. Cir. 2020), the court found a detention when officers parked within a few feet of the front of the defendant’s car, in a narrow parking lot, effectively blocking him in, and activated the takedown lights.

In the instant case, the court declined to establish a bright-line rule regarding the use of spotlights or takedown lights because their use should always be considered as a factor in the totality of circumstances. The court found the circumstances here were clear. Tacardon was not detained when Grubb parked behind the BMW, shined the spotlight on it and began to approach on foot. The “conduct up to this point conveyed none of the coercive hallmarks of a detention. He did not stop Tacardon’s vehicle or block him from driving away. He did not activate a siren or emergency lights, or give directions by loudspeaker. He did not approach rapidly or aggressively on foot or draw a weapon. He gave no commands . . . until the woman got out of the car and began to walk away.”

The court found that “a reasonable person would understand that spotlights can have a practical function . . . [and] can be used to illuminate the surrounding area for safety or other purposes unrelated to the projection of authority.” The court further reasoned that “a reasonable person would distinguish between a spotlight and red and blue emergency lights in considering whether the person was free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter.”

The Supreme Court explained that in this case, the defendant was detained at some point, but if the detention occurred before the deputy smelled marijuana smoke and observed bags of what appeared to be marijuana, the search was unjustified and the evidence discovered should be suppressed (14 Cal. 5th at p. 242).

The California Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeal to consider the “totality of the circumstances” in determining whether Tacardon was detained.

On remand, on April 27, 2023, the Court of Appeal likewise reversed its prior decision and sent the case back to the trial court. The Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to suppress and to conduct a new evidentiary suppression hearing in order to determine whether the search was legally justified under the “totality of the circumstances” test adopted by the California Supreme Court in this case (People v. Tacardon, No. C087681 [Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2023]).

Bottom line: The use of spotlights or takedown lights will not, on their own, necessarily constitute a detention, but will be considered as part of the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a suspect has been properly detained.

About the Author

Muna Busailah has been a partner with Stone Busailah, LLP since 1994 and has represented peace officers in police law and litigation cases, administrative, state and federal venues for over 28 years.