
A patdown for weapons is illegal absent sufficient reasonable suspicion to believe the subject may be armed. An officer’s knowledge that a detained individual has a prior weapons offense on his record, but with no indication that violence might have been involved, is legally insufficient to justify a patdown for weapons.
Vacaville Police Officer Chris Hill was on patrol at around 1:30 a.m. on January 3, 2020, when he observed defendant Juan Pantoja driving “rather quickly” (although within the 25 mph speed limit) while making a right turn onto Brown Street, in an area referred to as a “high-crime area.” Officer Hill decided to follow defendant. Noticing that his license plate light and his third brake light located in the rear window were not working, he decided to make a traffic stop. As defendant pulled into an apartment complex parking lot, Officer Hill turned on his overhead lights and initiated the traffic stop. Contacting defendant (the vehicle’s sole occupant), Officer Hill vaguely recognized him, noting that defendant was wearing a “baggy,” hooded sweatshirt. When defendant identified himself by providing his driver’s license, Officer Hill remembered him—as he wrote in his police report—as having “a history of violence and firearm possession, and (that) he was at the time an investigative lead in a homicide.” However, in later testimony, Officer Hill was unable to recall any specific crimes of violence in which defendant might have been involved. And the homicide case referred to above apparently was something in which he was no more than a witness. Officer Hill did testify to having had prior contacts with defendant a handful of times, and that he “also (had) seen his name in briefing logs.” Additionally, Officer Hill “thought” he’d transported defendant once when defendant was arrested for possession of firearms. However, the officer acknowledged in testimony that he was unable to recall having any personal contacts ....