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.

Red Lights on Parked Car: Detention

This week, the California Supreme Court addressed whether an officer pulling up behind a parked car with the emergency lights flashing is a detention. The Supreme Court concluded yes, it is a detention.



The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department received a 911 call to an address on a report of people fighting. The reporting party could also hear someone yell the “gun is loaded.” The caller estimated more than four people were involved. The RP also reported there was a car in the alley associated with the situation.

Deputy Geasland was told that four suspects were fighting and there had been mention of a loaded gun. Geasland saw a car leaving the location travelling in the direction of the car described by the RP. Geasland yelled to the defendant whether he had seen a fight. The defendant did not respond. Geasland continued down the alley but saw no one.

Deputy Geasland found defendant’s car parked a few houses away and pulled behind the car and activated his emergency lights. He approached the car and spoke with the defendant. The defendant had objective signs of being UTI and was arrested and charged with a felony DUI. He moved to suppress the observations of the officer. The trial court ruled no detention took place until the deputy saw signs of intoxication. The Appellate Court agreed that no detention occurs when a vehicle is already stopped. The CA Supreme Court took the case to determine whether when a deputy has emergency lights on behind a parked car is a detention.


The critical question is when did the defendant’s detention occur?. If the contact was consensual, in other words, a completely voluntary interaction where the officers ask questions and the individual answers, then no legal justification was necessary. But if Geasland detained the defendant when he turned on the emergency lights, Geasand would need articulable facts to justify the detention.

A detention, of course, is a situation when the officer by means of physical force or show of authority has in some way restrained the liberty of an individual. The individual is seized when the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed s/he was not free to leave.

Here, the CA Supreme Court found that defendant acquiesced to the show of authority by staying in the vehicle and no objective evidence suggested that defendant, or any other reasonable person, would believe they were free to leave. The court also held that there was reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant as there was a citizen informant calling 911 about a violent altercation with potential firearm involvement, the defendant was driving away from the area, there was no other pedestrian or vehicle traffic, and defendant was unresponsive to the officer’s question.

The court upheld the detention finding the deputy had no alternative but to contact the defendant to identify him and determine his involvement, if any, in the preceding altercation.

Significantly, the CA Supreme Court did not find that a detention ALWAYS occurs when a patrol car turns on emergency lights behind stopped vehicle. The Court, however, made it clear that under circumstances similar to these, the well trained officer will have articulable facts to support what she did.


  • Your class 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
  • Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to attend the Interview and Interrogation training presented by Paul Francois and Enrique Garcia.

    —Todd Almason, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
  • Your instructional style is engaging and your tag-team style is highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • You two are an effective teaching team, and your presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • 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
  • The information that they have presented is highly relevant to my job, and was presented in a manner that was highly organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Your class 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
  • ...Provides 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 was, by far, one of the most useful classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department