The California Court of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have issued two decisions which clarify the powers and rights of law enforcement officers. While addressing different facets of police officers’ power, the cases illustrate the limits which the law places over law enforcement power and police conduct, and indicate the restrictive legal environment within which law enforcement officers must operate.
In the California Court of Appeal case, People v. Chakos[1] the court considered whether an officer with no expertise on lawful use of prescription marijuana (so called, “medical marijuana”) could testify as an expert in the trial of a defendant charged with possessing marijuana for sale. A police search of the defendant’s car yielded $781 in cash, a quarter-ounce of marijuana and a doctor’s medical slip for lawful marijuana use. A search of his residence yielded six ounces of marijuana, empty baggies, and a digital gram scale. The officer had never arrested anyone with a physician’s statement for lawful use of marijuana, and had little knowledge of the specific pattern of individuals who lawfully possess medical marijuana. Nevertheless, the officer testified that the evidence discovered in the searches supported a charge of possession with intent to distribute, and was not consistent with someone lawfully possessing medical marijuana.
The Fourth Appellate District disallowed that testimony, noting that the officer did not have sufficient expertise in the patterns of lawful medical marijuana possession (as opposed to unlawful possession for sale) to qualify him as an expert on the subject. Although the officer stated he had contact with investigations concerning individuals who possessed a physician’s note for medical marijuana, the court found this contact insufficent to qualify the officer as an expert on medical marijuana. Without expert testimony, the evidence discovered through the searches was too speculative to support a possession for sale charge. For example, while the searches revealed a gram scale, large amounts of cash, and irregular quantities of marijuana — items which might be supportive of a possession for sale charge — such evidence might be consistent with standard, lawful medical marijuana possession. The officer’s lack of experience on this subject made it improper for him to testify as an expert, resulting in a reversal of the defendant’s conviction.
As such, People v. Chakos can be viewed as a limit on the powers of an individual police officer, preventing courts from relying on individual officers’ testimony where they may have indirect or ancillary knowledge.
A very different, but by no means insubstantial, limit on the rights of an individual law enforcement officer was found by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case, Aguilera v. Baca.[2] The officers in Aguilera were detained for questioning during an internal investigation following an alleged unprovoked assault by a uniformed deputy during a narcotics investigation. The officers were not arrested, searched, restrained or charged with a crime, but were told to remain in a room and instructed not to leave even after their shifts had ended, pending the internal affairs review. They later claimed that their detention amounted to an unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the threat of work demotions or job loss, and that the officers’ internal affairs detention did not rise to the level of a constitutional “seizure.” Drawing upon factors which have previously been stated by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal, the Ninth Circuit noted that the officers had been treated very differently than criminal defendants, they understood their rights and obligations, and they were aware that if they left they would be subject to administrative discipline as an employee but not criminal prosecution. The nature of their detention did not create a coercive environment because the officers were allowed to move freely, make phone calls, and were not physically touched or restrained as a normal criminal defendant would be.[3] Therefore, the officers had not been unconstitutionally “seized,” and their claims were denied.
Taken in conjunction with the holding in People v. Chakos, above, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Aguilera marks a further limit on law enforcement officers’ rights and powers. As with the restraint placed on officers testifying as experts found in Chakos, the officers in Aguilera face an analogous restraint on their freedom from administrative review and internal affairs investigation.
Law enforcement professionals should take note of these decisions, and the special limits placed on police conduct. In particular, police agencies should consider providing specialized training to officers expected to testify on issues which expert testimony is needed, and should act in accordance with the facts of Aguilera to avoid constitutional “seizure” problems.
For more information regarding these issues and other issues related to law enforcement, please contact Matthew Gorman at 562.699.5500.
[1] People v. Chakos 2007 DJDAR 18988.
[2] Aguilera v. Baca 2007 DJDAR 19020.
[3] The court also dismissed the officers’ Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, concerning rights against self-incrimination and due process. The court found that the officers were not compelled to answer any questions, were not asked to waive any immunities, and were not charged with a crime. Their statements were never used against them in any proceeding, and their reassignment to other duties pending investigation did not rise to a level of constitutional concern.
