I am a misdemeanor prosecutor, so this is a topic I only come across as a side issue....under what circumstances outside of CCP 14 can officers make a traffic stop to investigate a felony that suspect is not currently fleeing from?

This question came up because I am taking a UCW to trial. Weapons were found based upon a call to dispatch that a woman was being held against her will and the man was armed and dangerous--possible kidnapping (and known to all our local law enforcement as dangerous, gun toting, wife beating, drug dealer).

In discussing the testimony about the stop we were going through other scenarios and hypos about investigatory detentions and the following scenario came up:

Robbery was committed and the victim gave a partial license plate and description of robber. Days later, another disturbance (not a felony or family violence) was called into 911 and the robber was described again, this time with the complete license plate. Another officer saw him and pulled him over to talk about the days old robbery (and probably also asked about the more recent disturbance).

Is this a good stop? And if so, what is the basis of the validity of a detention? I don't think it is, but this is out of my area of expertise....and of course they do it on Law and Order all the time!!

Reasonable Suspicion (at least) is needed to make a investigatory detention or in your case a traffic stop where a subject is stopped and detained for an amount of time/circumstances less than an arrest.

Reasonable suspicion: "a legal standard in that a person; has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion."

Does the stop satisfy the above???

Reasonable suspicion exists--but it's not that a crime is occurring or about to occur--which I had always thought was major. I remember some cases from law school where felons were running from crime scenes and there were questions about when they found the running felon, minutes or hours later, it was still a fleeing felon and could be arrested without warrant. So I don't think that days or many hours later would work.....but the officers were focusing on the fact that they were only investigating and not arresting yet. In the cases they were asking me about, the reasonable suspicion applied to a days old crime.

I don't think the stop for an "investigation" for something days old would work either. If that is their sole purpose. Always best to observe a violation of the law (no turn signal, no front LP, ect.) and then make the stop and your investigation into prior events could happen (ID suspect, ect.)

In my opinion, questioning the suspect about the days old crime while on the scene of the stop would have to be shown as voluntary on the suspects part (might be hard) since it goes beyond the time element given for the temporary detention (the purpose of the stop, in this case the traffic violation observed).

Or of course you can Observe the violation, make the stop, instanter for the class C traffic violation, continue your investigation that way, ect.

Several options I think your officers have besides just stopping days later for an investigative purpose.