California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Conway, 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 533 (Cal. App. 1994):
[25 Cal.App.4th 390] Here, Officer Judd had no description of the suspects and did not know if they had a car. However, the information he received about criminal activity was very current. Less than two minutes after receiving the report of a burglary in progress, he saw a car leaving the area of the reported burglary. The time was approximately 3 a.m., and the officer saw no one else in the area. Under the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the officer to suspect the car's occupants were involved in the burglary. (Cf. People v. Lloyd, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 733-734, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 105; People v. McCluskey (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 220, 226, 178 Cal.Rptr. 7.)
We recognize that driving in a residential area early in the morning is consistent with lawful activity. "But the possibility that the circumstances are consistent with lawful activity does not render a detention invalid, where the circumstances also raise a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances; indeed the principal function of the investigative stop is to resolve that ambiguity." (People v. Dolliver (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 49, 56, 225 Cal.Rptr. 920.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.