Police stop for being parked in a “high crime area” is a prima facie violation of Racial Justice Act

DEMOND FINLEY, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 30, 2023, No. A167311) 2023 WL 5620093, at *1
Summary: The San Francisco Superior Court erred in finding that Finley failed to make a prima case of an RJA violation, where the police officer stopped and searched his car for being parked in a “high crime area.” An expert testified that “high crime area” was routinely used by police to conduct pretext stops of Black people for minor offenses to search for contraband, and SFPD’s own stats showing Black people were stopped and searched at a higher rate than whites.

The Court of Appeal set a low prima facie bar in RJA cases and held that the trial court must accept the defenses proffered factual allegations and supporting evidence as true and could not consider the DA’s race-neutral counter evidence at the prima facie stage. The court remanded for a rehearing applying the proper prima facie standard.

Background and facts: Finley was charged with several firearm possession crimes after police discovered a handgun during a search of his car. Finley filed a motion under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1) (the Racial Justice Act) claiming that police stopped and searched his car because he is Black. The trial court denied Finley’s motion for failure to state a prima facie violation of the Racial Justice Act.  But the trial court’s review of Finley’s motion went beyond the confines of determining whether it stated a prima facie case. The Court of Appeal granted  Finley’s petition for writ of mandate and direct the trial court to rehear the motion.

The People charged Finley, who is Black, with possession of a firearm by a felon,  being a convicted person carrying a loaded firearm, being a convicted person having a concealed firearm in a vehicle,  and being a person on probation prohibited or restricted from possessing a firearm.

At the preliminary hearing, Officer Terrell Gunn, a San Francisco police officer, testified that he observed a blue Buick parked on the 600 block of Minna Street in San Francisco. According to Officer Gunn, the area is a known high-crime area. Officer Gunn ran another query and learned that Finley was on federal probation with a search clause. Officer Gunn then searched the vehicle. From the rear passenger seat, he retrieved a backpack which contained a loaded handgun without a serial number.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, the trial court denied Finley’s motion to suppress after concluding that Officer Gunn’s probation search was lawful.

Finley then filed a motion alleging a violation of the Racial Justice Act. He claimed that police showed racial bias or animus toward him when they stopped and searched his vehicle in violation of section 745, subdivision (a)(1).

 Finley cited these factors to support his motion: (1) Officer Gunn ran Finley’s license plates for “no apparent logical non-racial reason”; (2) Officer’s Gunn’s justification that petitioner was present in a high-crime area is “a notorious reference to neighborhoods with a high concentration of Black people, or other people of color”; (3) Officer Gunn ran a driver’s license check on Finley despite confirming that the vehicle was not stolen; (4) police officer body-worn cameras show that a police sergeant on the scene told other officers that he did not want to discuss the circumstances of the incident on camera; (5) Officer Gunn originally stated in a police report that he found Finley’s work identification card in the same compartment of the backpack as the gun during his search, but admitted at the preliminary hearing that he found petitioner’s identification later at the police station; and (6) reports and studies show that Black people in San Francisco are far more likely to be stopped by police than other groups.

Trial court found no prima facie violation of the Racial Justice Act

The trial court concluded that Finley did not establish a prima facie violation of the Racial Justice Act and denied his motion. The trial court found  that a prima facie case has not been made and that Officer Gunn gave non-race specific reasons as to why he was patrolling this area and why he ran the plate as he did.” Finley challenged the trial court’s ruling by filing a petition for writ of mandate in the appellate court.

Racial Justice Act – Statutory Overview

The Racial Justice Act states that “[t]he state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.” (Pen. Code, § 745, subd. (a).) “The [Racial Justice] Act sets forth four categories of conduct, any of which, if proved, is enough to ‘establish’ a violation of section 745, subdivision (a).” (Young v. Superior Court (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 147 (Young).) The issue in this case is whether “[t]he judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or juror exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin.” (§ 745, subd. (a)(1).)4

Young explained how the Racial Justice Act operates: “Procedurally, the Act authorizes defendants to seek relief for a violation of section 745, subdivision (a), prior to imposition of judgment, by ‘motion … in the trial court.’ (§ 745, subd. (c).) If such a motion is brought, the court shall, upon a showing of a prima facie violation of section 745, subdivision (a), hold a hearing at which ‘evidence may be presented by either party, including, but not limited to, statistical evidence, aggregate data, expert testimony, and the sworn testimony of witnesses’; the court may appoint an independent expert; and the defendant shall bear the burden of proof of a violation of section 745, subdivision (a) by a preponderance of the evidence. (§ 745, subd. (c).) At the conclusion of the hearing, ‘the court shall make findings on the record.’ (§ 745, subd. (c)(3).) And if a violation of section 745, subdivision (a) is proved, ‘the court shall impose a remedy specific to the violation found from the following list’ (§ 745, subd. (e)): declaration of a mistrial, discharge of the jury and empanelment of a new jury; or dismissal of enhancements, special circumstance allegations, or other special allegations; or reduction of one or more charges. (§ 745, subd. (e)(1)(A)–(C).) Claimed violations of section 745, subdivision (a) may also be raised postjudgment, by petition for habeas corpus under section 1473, subdivision (f) or by motion to vacate an allegedly invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7. The Act authorizes a set of remedies specific to postjudgment requests for relief. (§ 745, subd. (e)(2)(A)–(B).)” (Young, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at p. 148.)

The Racial Justice Act states that the trial court “shall hold a hearing” if “the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a violation,” (§ 745, subd. (c)), and specifically defines the term “prima facie showing”: “ ‘Prima facie showing’ means that the defendant produces facts that, if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of [the Racial Justice Act] occurred.” (§ 745, subd. (h)(2).) Under the Racial Justice Act, “a ‘substantial likelihood’ requires more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not.” (Ibid.)

No published decision has addressed the prima facie standard under the Racial Justice Act.

In a habeas proceeding, “the petitioner bears a heavy burden initially to plead sufficient grounds for relief, and then later to prove them.” (People v. Duvall, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 474.) The standard is not as stringent in a Racial Justice Act case. Under the Racial Justice Act, the court does not ask if the defendant proffered facts sufficient to demonstrate actual entitlement to relief. Rather, the court asks if a defendant has proffered facts sufficient to show a “substantial likelihood”–defined as “more than a mere possibility, but less than a standard of more likely than not”–that the Racial Justice Act has been violated. (§ 745, subd. (h)(2).) The prima facie threshold is lower than the preponderance of the evidence standard required to establish an actual violation of the Racial Justice Act. (§ 745, subd. (a).)

Imposing a “heavy burden” at the prima facie stage in a Racial Justice Act case would be contrary to the Act’s structure and purpose. By enacting the Racial Justice Act, the Legislature intended “to depart from the discriminatory purpose paradigm in federal equal protection law,” a standard that was “ ‘nearly impossible to establish.’ ” (Young, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at pp. 149–150.) The Legislature also imposed “escalating burdens of proof” within the statutory scheme, with a lower standard of proof at the prima facie stage (“substantial likelihood”) than at an evidentiary hearing (“preponderance of the evidence”). (Id. at p. 160.) The Legislature could not have intended to place a “heavy burden” on a defendant at the prima facie stage of a Racial Justice Act case.

At the prima facie stage of a Racial Justice Act motion, by contrast, the trial court must consider whether the motion and its supporting evidence state facts that, “if true, establish that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation” occurred (§ 745, subd. (h)(2), italics added), and should not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, except in the rare case where the record “irrefutably establishes” that a defendant’s allegations are false. (People v. Harden, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 56.)

The trial court did not apply the correct legal standard at the prima facie stage, so the Court of Appeal directed the court to conduct a new hearing to determine whether Finley has asserted a prima facie violation of the Racial Justice Act.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.