FACTS
On September 19, 2013, California Highway Patrol Officer Shawn Hendricks was stationed at Westbound 580 near downtown Oakland, a notorious drug trafficking area. Hendricks observed a 1974 Ford truck moving from the far right-hand to the far left lane. The driver was an approximately 25-year-old Latino male. As the driver passed Hendricks, he avoided eye contact with him. Hendricks pulled onto the freeway and entered the flow of traffic. As he followed the truck, he noticed that the truck was riding low in the back and responded lethargically to bumps in the road. Hendricks pulled alongside the truck and nodded, but the driver continued staring straight ahead. Hendricks then ran the driver’s license plate number through his on-board computer, but discovered no outstanding tickets or violations. Suddenly, the truck accelerated, crossed back to the right-hand side of the highway and exited. Hendricks followed, pulled the truck over and identified San Francisco resident Jesse Mendez as the driver of the …show more content…
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002). This prohibition extends to investigatory traffic stops. Id. While not an arrest, investigatory stops require a sufficient rational for their occurrence. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981). An officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime is likely being committed. Id. The reasonable suspicion standard is less than probable cause, thus the articulated facts "need not be inconsistent with innocence." United States v. Rodriguez, 976 F.2d 592, 594. To establish reasonable suspicion the court looks at the totality of the circumstances of all specific, articulable facts to determine if criminal activity was likely. Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273-74 (2002). The totality of the circumstances doctrine prohibits the review of facts in isolation. Id. at 273. It requires all facts to be viewed together to establish reasonable suspicion.