A California Court of Appeal has ordered a lower court to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion filed under the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA) by Gabriel Joseph Hernandez, who is charged with illegal possession of ammunition. Hernandez claims that police racially profiled him during a traffic stop, leading to the discovery of the ammunition.
The case stems from a June 2022 traffic stop in San Jose. Police officers pulled over a car in which Hernandez was a passenger, citing a non-functioning license plate light and illegally tinted windows. During the stop, officers searched Hernandez and found a “narcotics pipe” on his person. A subsequent search of a backpack near Hernandez revealed a loaded 9mm magazine and loose ammunition. Because Hernandez had prior felony convictions, he was prohibited from possessing ammunition, leading to the charges against him.
Hernandez then filed a motion asserting that the police stop and search were motivated by racial bias, violating the RJA. He argued that the officers engaged in racial profiling, used stereotypically Latinx language, and made assumptions about his criminal history. The trial court denied Hernandez’s motion, finding that he failed to establish a prima facie violation of the RJA. Hernandez then appealed.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court’s decision, stating that Hernandez had presented enough evidence to warrant a full evidentiary hearing.
What is the Racial Justice Act?
The California Racial Justice Act aims to eliminate racial bias from the state’s criminal justice system. It allows defendants to challenge convictions or sentences if they can prove that racial bias played a role in their case. The RJA recognizes that bias can be unintentional or implicit.
Hernandez’s Claims of Racial Bias
Hernandez presented several arguments to support his claim of racial bias:
* Racial Profiling During the Traffic Stop: Hernandez argued that the initial traffic stop was a pretext, and the officers were motivated by his race or ethnicity. He presented expert testimony citing statistics showing that Latino drivers in San Jose are disproportionately stopped by police.
* Racial Profiling During the Pat Search: Hernandez claimed that the officers used his “baggy clothes” as a pretext to conduct a pat search. He argued that “baggy clothing” is often associated with race and used as a justification for searching minorities.
* Use of Stereotypical Language: Hernandez pointed to the officers’ use of terms like “homie” and “primo” as evidence of racial bias. He argued that these terms reflect a belief that, because he is Latinx, he must be involved in criminal activity.
* Assumptions About Criminal History: Hernandez asserted that the officers assumed he was a felon based on his race. He cited the officers’ comment, “Homie’s a felon fo sholly,” as evidence of this assumption.
* Use of a “Sureño Whistle”: Hernandez claimed that one of the officers used a whistle associated with Sureño gangs, implying that the officer associated him with gang activity because of his ethnicity.
Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in denying Hernandez’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court emphasized that, under the RJA, a defendant only needs to show a “substantial likelihood” of a violation, which is a lower standard than “more likely than not.”
The court stated that at the initial stage, the trial court should have focused on whether Hernandez’s evidence, if true, would establish a substantial likelihood of a violation, rather than weighing the evidence against contrary arguments. They also emphasized that claims under the RJA should be reviewed in the totality of the proffered facts.
The Court of Appeal found that the expert testimony regarding racial disparities in traffic stops, combined with the officers’ language and actions during the stop, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial bias. The court was particularly critical of the lower court’s dismissal of the expert’s testimony, finding that there was no evidence to support the trial court’s skepticism about the study’s validity.
The court also addressed the officers’ comment, “Homie’s a felon fo sholly.” The Court of Appeal, after reviewing the body camera footage, found that Hernandez did not admit to having a felony conviction as the trial court stated, but only admitted to a misdemeanor warrant.
The court ordered the trial court to vacate its previous order and hold an evidentiary hearing to fully consider Hernandez’s claims.