California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 807, 45 A.L.R.3d 559, 478 P.2d 449, 91 Cal.Rptr. 729 (Cal. 1970):
Secondly, the argument assumes that only the guilty will react in the described manner to a policeman's signal to stop their car. The reported opinions make much of the 'fact' that the claimed furtive gestures were not seen to occur Until the officers turned on their red light or siren. (See, e.g., People v. Sanson (1957) supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 250, 253, 319 P.2d 422, 424, ('No such movements appear to have been made by any of (the defendants) during the previous period the police had their car under surveillance').) As explained above, this sequence could be entirely fortuitous; indeed, in certain cases the movements could have preceded the officer's pursuit but not been visible until he drew closer for the purpose of stopping the car. But even assuming that this chronology also evidences a causal nexus--post hoc, ergo propter hoc--the analysis does not end there. Reflection with suggest many more innocent than guilty explanations for a motorist's act of 'leaning forward' or 'bending down' in the circumstances at hand.
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.