We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

People v. Espino

On August 2, our local court of appeal issued a decision in People v. Espino 2016 WL 2993994. The Court addressed a couple of issues in the case: first whether a detention in a car stop was illegally prolonged and second whether Espino was under an illegal arrest when he consented to a search of his car.


The Court held that the detention was not unduly prolonged but that the suspect was subject to an illegal arrest and thus suppressed the evidence. The problem with this case and the decision is the continuing tension between officer safety and the liberty interest of the suspect. There isn’t much to fault the officer with here – one judge saw it for law enforcement and three didn’t.


Sergeant Joe Deras of the Gilroy Police Department stopped defendant Freddy Espino for speeding. Deras ran Espino and while there were no wants or warrants, the search revealed Espino was a sexual registrant. Deras attempted to confirm the address Espino listed as his residence. Deras called another officer for information about where Espino lived but was unable to reach that officer. Based on an informant’s tip about Espino selling narcotics and firearms the police extended the stop for further investigation. Deras wanted to wait for other officers before he searched the vehicle because he was concerned Espino had firearms in the car. Espino was ordered out of his car. During a conversation on the street Espino repeatedly put his hands in his pockets. The officers asked for consent to search his pockets.

The defendant consented to a search of his person, whereupon officers found an object in his pocket. Thinking the object was crack cocaine, the officers handcuffed defendant. But after examining the object, the police determined it was not crack cocaine, but a diamond. Without removing the handcuffs, police continued to question defendant and requested consent to search his car. After some hesitation, defendant gave consent for the car search, whereupon the police found several grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s car. The defendant had been handcuffed by this time for two to three minutes and a total of approximately 13 minutes had elapsed between the stop and search of the car. Officers obtained a search warrant for defendant’s residence where they found a safe containing a .22 and ammunition. Espino moved to suppress the evidence and the trial court denied the motion. Espino plead guilty and appealed.


The length of the detention was a total of 13 minutes. The court reaffirmed that an officer may prolong the detention to complete ordinary inquiries incident to the detention; such as running wants and warrants, checking insurance etc. If officers develop reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity the officers may expand the scope of the detention to investigate that activity. The officers were justified in prolonging the detention to investigate Espino’s 290 status. Further, they had information from a reliable informant that he was selling guns and drugs.


Espino argued that his detention became and arrest when he was handcuffed. Remember, just handcuffing a suspect does not turn a detention into an arrest if the officers had reasonable belief that the precaution was necessary. Here is where things became a problem for the case. The court held that Espino was “peaceful and compliant,” that he was outnumbered by the officers three-to-one, and that they had information he was selling narcotics. These facts suggested the officers had cause to arrest Espino and handcuff him. However, while the officers believed they felt crack cocaine in his pocket, a diamond was recovered instead. The court believed that probable cause to arrest dissipated at that point and that the officers had a duty to remove the handcuffs. Because they didn’t the detention became and illegal arrest and all items found in the car based upon Espino’s consent were suppressed.

Certainly officers can see the flaw in this logic. Espino was handcuffed for less than the entire detention, and was asked for consent during the short duration he was handcuffed after the determination that the object in his pocket was a diamond. The court looked to other jurisdictions and determined the suspect must immediately be let go. The problem with this analysis was that the 290 question had not been resolved to that point. Certainly, this decision does nothing to clear up the conflict between officer safety and detentions.





  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police