Chinaryan vs. the City of Los Angeles

This one is all about high risk stops. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has made a decision that might affect how police officers approach vehicles they have reasonable suspicion it might be stolen. Check out the video!

[@TravNasty520]

What about if the vehicle has a stolen plate on the vehicle? Would that justify a high risk stop?

[@fxh2693]

3:14 Ask Whittier PD Officer Keith Boyer about that encouragement. Oh, wait, you can't because he was murdered by the gang member driving the stolen car. You are out of your mind remaining or becoming a police officer in California or anywhere else covered by the 9th Circuit.

[@KyleHansen-y8n]

There's a little more to it than that, though. It wasn't simply same make and model; it was color, make, model and modifications. The stolen vehicle, as well as the vehicle belonging to Chinaryan, was a black Chevrolet Suburban LIMOUSINE. Hardly a common vehicle, even in LA. From my understanding, the court took issue with the level of force on vehicle theft, only, and cited the three prong Graham V Connor test. They concluded that the suspects posed no more threat than any other vehicle thief and were cooperating with all commands, not attempting to evade. I think this video is misleading.

[@AZPoliceLawyer]

There's a lot more to every case that I review on this channel. I do the best I can to summarize pertinent information for officers to consider when they are applying caselaw to their decisions on the streets. The holding here is that full-blown "felony stops" - with guns drawn - may not be permissible going forward in similar situations. Thanks for watching - and for your comment.

[@jaredclemons8078]

If you’re a cop in certain parts of this country, why would you even risk being the least bit proactive?

[@DesertJoshB]

I foresee this getting overturned, but thank you for the update. Very helpful.

[@ycland]

The occupants of the vehicle were detained prior to being proned out, the act of yielding to a police vehicle and following orders given is a detainment.

[@rnrae2a]

Would that be like someone “matching the description of someone” would that be a consensual encounter and would the person have to identify themselves?

[@non_of_you_business4125]

So was it “excessive force” because they proned them out?

[@AZPoliceLawyer]

According to the Ninth Circuit in this Opinion, that appears to have been a significant factor in their holding.

[@jortega456]

Thanks for this explanation. Cheers

[@AZPoliceLawyer]

Glad it was helpful!

[@rxtu7367]

Job is dead.

[@sethdechand2657]

Good video thanks