{"id":89833,"date":"2024-11-07T15:17:18","date_gmt":"2024-11-07T23:17:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=89833"},"modified":"2026-09-17T07:06:05","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T14:06:05","slug":"chinaryan-versus-the-lapd","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=89833","title":{"rendered":"Can Police Do a High-Risk Stop Just Because a Car Might Be Stolen?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This was one of the most requested videos on the channel, especially from officers in the Ninth Circuit<\/a>. It covers Chinaryan v. LAPD, a case about what happens when everything points to a stolen car and the car turns out not to be stolen at all.<\/em><\/p>\n

Can police use highly intrusive tactics like pointing guns and proning out people during a routine high-risk traffic stop for a stolen vehicle? Oh boy, we’ve got to talk about Chinaryan v. the LAPD.<\/p>\n

My name is Anthony Bandiero, I’m an attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, bringing you another roadside chat. This is a very, very highly requested video from officers around the country.<\/p>\n

What happened in Chinaryan v. LAPD?<\/h2>\n

So it all begins on June 14th, 2019, where LAPD conducted a high-risk traffic stop on a black Chevy Suburban with some tinted windows.<\/p>\n

Now to give you a little teed up about what kind of happened and what caused this high-risk traffic stop. A black Chevy Suburban was stolen in LA about three days prior. So an LAPD helicopter was in this area, this business district, this warehouse district, and it got a LoJack hit for the vehicle. Well, they started trying to get officers in the area trying to track this vehicle down, and they did see a black Chevy Suburban. And they ran the plate, the plate came back to a Dodge Ram pickup.<\/p>\n

We are on the right track here, right? That’s a very common thing for car thieves to do, is the cold plated vehicle. They’ll switch out license plates with a legit vehicle. They’ll go to a parking lot, they’ll see a vehicle that generally matches the description, they will surreptitiously put the stolen vehicle plate on that vehicle, take the clean plate, put that on the stolen vehicle, and hopefully nobody knows the difference.<\/p>\n

So they ran the plate. But there was one thing. The LoJack signal was not actually coming from that vehicle. They later testified that it is possible for car thieves to deactivate the LoJack signal, they may have found the emitter and so forth.<\/p>\n

So believing that they had this vehicle, again LoJack hit in the area, this is a black Chevy Suburban, it matches the description of a stolen vehicle from three days prior, it’s cold plated, let’s conduct a high-risk traffic stop and take care of some business.<\/p>\n

So they call out Chinaryan and her occupants and they’re at gunpoint. You know the game here, you know what song is being played here. Show me your hands, come out, throw the keys out the window. They get Chinaryan and her occupants out, they put them on the ground, they felony prone them out, they put them in handcuffs, they investigate, and lo and behold, that is not the stolen vehicle.<\/p>\n

How did everything line up and still be wrong?<\/h2>\n

So this is like a comedy of errors. Even though it’s not funny to Chinaryan, it is kind of a comedy of errors in a sense. This is like a perfect storm of not the people that we stopped. Because the vehicle matched, they were in the area, it was not an old case, it was only three days prior, the plates are cold plated. But all this was just, that was not the stolen car. In fact that car was not stolen at all.<\/p>\n

Even the plate, the plate was off by one digit, and it was the DMV’s fault. The DMV mistakenly issued plates to a Dodge Ram, not to the Suburban. So there’s a Dodge Ram out there with Suburban plates and the Suburban got the Dodge plates.<\/p>\n

So if you look at it from LA’s point of view, they stopped the right car. But they didn’t have probable cause. In other words, this is still not up to that level where we can just be like, all right, come out, your hands up, click click, you’re under arrest. We still have to investigate.<\/p>\n

It wasn’t like the car was taken 15 minutes ago. It was taken three days ago. It is possible that the people driving this car really have nothing to do with the original grand larceny. They could be a friend of a friend driving the vehicle, and maybe they’re engaged in some other criminal activity, no license, joy riding, whatever it is. But they may or may not have the intent to steal the car.<\/p>\n

So the cops are investigating. I think we can agree on that. That does not equal probable cause yet for that particular person. We have probable cause that a crime has been committed. But we don’t have probable cause that this person behind the wheel is our thief. Not with these facts. That’s all we know.<\/p>\n

What did the Ninth Circuit hold?<\/h2>\n

So now after we dust off Chinaryan and the occupants, we’re going to sue. And Chinaryan wants some dough. She says look, when you pointed the firearms at me, when you put me on the ground like that, all for what, a property crime that you just had reasonable suspicion<\/a> on, you had no reason to believe I was armed and dangerous. I want money, that’s excessive force<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And the Ninth Circuit agreed.<\/p>\n

So this is going to rock your world, because quite frankly it’s not really the way that law enforcement in the country has done business really ever. When it comes to stolen vehicles we have conducted high-risk traffic stops for decades.<\/p>\n

And if you’re not in the Ninth Circuit, you don’t have to listen to this case. This is not binding authority on you. However, the Ninth Circuit is on to something here. I do give them a hard time, and many of my colleagues do as well. They are a very liberal panel and you’ve got to be very careful with these guys, because they will definitely rule from the heart, not from the law books. But they’re on to something here.<\/p>\n

So it states that officers can be held liable for conducting a high-risk vehicle stop based on nothing more than reasonable suspicion of the vehicle being stolen.<\/p>\n

And one of the quotes here is that the Fourth Amendment protects persons from the terrifying and humiliating experience of being pulled from their cars at gunpoint, handcuffed, and made to lie face down on the pavement, when insufficient reason for such intrusive police conduct exists.<\/p>\n

Look, I kind of see where they’re coming from. I have never been pulled out of my car at gunpoint and ordered to lay on asphalt. But it would be terrifying in a sense. I mean, I don’t want to be shot. I don’t like to be at the business end of a firearm and so forth. And if I found out later that all we have is a property crime. They’re going to talk about this whole experience with stolen vehicles and so forth, but if you’re going to court and all you got is a stolen car, that’s all you got, that’s a lot of intrusion for that crime.<\/p>\n

Now I’m not telling you you’re without options. I’m going to tell you what your options are.<\/p>\n

Did the driver do anything suspicious during the follow?<\/h2>\n

I should also mention that when LAPD pulled them over, they followed them for like 10 minutes to get the cavalry, the helicopter. I think there’s like 12 officers total. Well, there’s like two officers per car, so probably approximately six LAPD vehicles involved in a stop.<\/p>\n

But while they were following them, nothing was out of the ordinary according to LAPD. They drove correct. They did the speed limit. They stopped at stop signs. They were not evasive. There was no furtive movements, etc.<\/p>\n

So although they did say that vehicle theft is an “arguably severe crime,” they put that in quotes by the way, so I think they’re kind of being sarcastic, the officers had no articulable basis to suspect that the plaintiffs posed a threat to anyone beyond the generic threat that a suspected vehicle thief possesses.<\/p>\n

So again, as a retired trooper, I understand that a lot of these people who steal cars, they do a lot of crazy stuff to get away. They do a lot of crazy stuff. But you need to articulate this stuff. And hasn’t that been my message since 2010, since I started this business? You do such good work out there, but then when you go to court you say things like, all car thieves are dangerous people. And the courts are not buying it.<\/p>\n

So you have to justify what you are doing out there.<\/p>\n

What about tinted windows?<\/h2>\n

They also talked about, LAPD is like, well, there’s tinted windows in the vehicle, we can’t see in the vehicle. Well, that’s a great safety concern and I want to address that.<\/p>\n

This is what they said. While tinted windows might justify precautions beyond the standard traffic stop in some circumstances, police must consider less intrusive alternatives before using extreme force. And they referenced some other cases.<\/p>\n

So here, even a tactical investigatory stop, rather than a high-risk stop, would have addressed the officers’ inability to see into the vehicle’s rear seats from a position of cover. They could have ordered plaintiffs to step outside, lift up their clothing, and turn around to reveal if they had weapons in their waistbands.<\/p>\n

I actually think that this is a really important quote, maybe the most important quote out of the whole case. Because in all due respect, the Ninth Circuit is not saying you’re without options. They’re not saying you have to put your life on the line during these traffic stops. Now there’s always a risk in law enforcement, you know that just as well as I do. But they are saying alternatives.<\/p>\n

What are the alternatives to a full high-risk stop?<\/h2>\n

So let me just teach you what I have taught my clients in the Ninth Circuit that are dealing with this issue.<\/p>\n

Number one is, I have told them you cannot point a gun at or towards, even if it’s below their feet, towards an occupant of a stolen vehicle without specific reasons to believe that they are a danger to you. Or look, if you have the driver who just got done shooting out of the car, can you point guns at everybody, come out of the car? Absolutely. Unless it’s a damn five-year-old. And don’t give me no “oh, the five-year-olds can be packing heat too.” Yeah, that’s true, but be careful with that. I don’t like that whole logic of the hyper-vigilant stuff. Let’s just be rational about this.<\/p>\n

Nobody’s going to give you a hard time about making sure, because they’re probably confederates, accomplices and so forth. So nobody’s going to have a problem with that. But if you’re going to point a gun at or towards somebody, you have to have a reason.<\/p>\n

But the court also said you’re not without options.<\/p>\n

Low ready, right at your side, or Southpaw, or one agency calls it the indoor ready, where you have the gun at your chest with your hand blocking the trigger so it doesn’t snag on anything and you’re pointing the gun low. That is permissible. That’s not at anybody. Nobody said you cannot have your gun out and ready to take care of business.<\/p>\n

Calling the person towards you with their back towards you is permissible. Yes, it’s a little higher in level of intrusion, but it’s not deadly force or highly humiliating. Throwing the keys out the window. Doing pat downs if you believe that there could be a danger. Having them walk to an officer. Putting handcuffs on them for a fight or flight reason. These are very low levels of intrusion. Handcuffs is not pointing a gun.<\/p>\n

So it’s the pointing guns at them or towards their direction, like if I’m looking at your body cam and the weapon is in their general direction, that’s the thing we’re talking about. And it’s also spreading them out on pavement. That’s the kind of humiliation that we’re trying to prevent, without some reason to believe that they are a danger.<\/p>\n

Does training and experience alone justify it?<\/h2>\n

Finally, the court said defendants, that’s LAPD, cite their training and personal experience that stolen vehicles are often linked with armed and dangerous individuals. But the officers in the earlier case the court discussed were similarly aware that occupants of stolen vehicles can be armed and dangerous. Indeed, that is why they argued that the existence of a stolen vehicle in and of itself is enough to satisfy the degree of force used.<\/p>\n

And the court held that the generic danger posed by stopping a cold plated vehicle may or may not justify a high-risk stop, and only a jury can resolve this inherently factual question.<\/p>\n

So they’re going to give it to the jury. But let me just tell you, a California jury, look, even a Texas jury, would probably be persuaded that this is a little much for nothing more than a stolen car.<\/p>\n

However, in most of your circumstances, are you going to have more than just a stolen car? Are you going to have the furtive movements, the looking like they’re hiding weapons or grabbing weapons? Are you going to have the delayed stop? Are you going to have the yelling at you, why’d you stop me, all this not complying with the commands and so forth? The answer is yes. Change the facts, change the answer.<\/p>\n

Why “I was trained that way” is not an answer<\/h2>\n

But at the end of the day, Chinaryan is on to something here. We do have to articulate what we’re doing out there.<\/p>\n

I have been telling my students for years that if you go to court, or IA, internally or externally, if you’re asked why you did something, and what you are asked about is an intrusive issue, pointing guns, handcuffing, entering homes, and you say something like, well, I was trained that way. Or, that’s the way I’ve been doing business for 15 years, I’ve never had a problem, but now that you’re my new sergeant all of a sudden you’ve got a problem with what I’m doing. That is not a reason.<\/p>\n

Can you have been trained incorrectly? I know it firsthand that there are many, many cops out there that have been trained incorrectly, that they think they can do stuff that the law does not allow, and they just haven’t been caught yet.<\/p>\n

You need to justify your intrusion. You need to justify what you’re doing out there. So if you can understand that pointing guns and laying people on the ground is a use of force, which it is, then you can appreciate that when you’re asked why you did it, you need something more than a generic property crime that is often associated with bad people. You’re going to need something more.<\/p>\n

But you’re not without options. Remember what I just told you. You can definitely do the tactical investigatory stop, which is what LAPD does. It’s between high risk and unknown risk, it’s right in the middle. It does give you some options to stay safe. Maybe consider that in these situations.<\/p>\n

The short version<\/h2>\n