AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• On January 7, 2010, Sergeant Roman Romero of the Clovis Police Department received a dispatch call about a domestic battery involving a seventeen-year-old female, Elizabeth F., who had allegedly left the scene with the Defendant, Justin A. Clayton. Romero, familiar with Clayton and his vehicle, proceeded to a residence where he had previously seen Clayton's vehicle rather than Elizabeth F.'s house. After checking communication between the two houses, Romero located Clayton's vehicle at a convenience store, blocked it with his patrol car, and approached it, leading to Clayton's seizure. Upon approaching the vehicle, Romero saw a large knife on the seat and handcuffed Clayton after he made a move for the knife.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that there was reasonable suspicion to believe that Clayton was with Elizabeth F., justifying the seizure of Clayton's vehicle.
• Defendant: Contended that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the seizure, emphasizing the need for individualized suspicion of criminal activity.

Legal Issues

• Whether there was reasonable suspicion to detain the Defendant's vehicle at the beginning of the police/citizen encounter.

Disposition

• The district court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was affirmed.

Reasons

• Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, held that there was no reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant’s vehicle, affirming the district court's ruling. The court found that the district court's factual finding that the officer who seized Defendant had not received information relating to Defendant’s vehicle was critical. The State conceded that Clayton was seized when his vehicle was blocked and approached by Sergeant Romero. However, the court determined that the facts known to Sergeant Romero did not justify a seizure since there was no information placing Elizabeth F. in Clayton's vehicle at the time of the original dispatch call or based on any observations made by Sergeant Romero at the place of seizure. The court also noted that the district court, as the factfinder, resolved inconsistencies in Sergeant Romero's testimony by finding that, at best, Elizabeth F. was last seen leaving on foot with Clayton, not in Clayton's vehicle. The court concluded that the initial contact with Clayton was not lawful, and therefore, any evidence obtained as a result of the encounter must be suppressed.