Davis v. Appellate Div. of the Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
Decision Date | 15 May 2018 |
Docket Number | B286525 |
Parties | Thomas Darion DAVIS, Petitioner, v. APPELLATE DIVISION OF the SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Nicole Tinkham, Public Defender, Albert J. Menaster, Head Public Defender, Omar Terrence Boyan and Mark G. Harvis, Deputy Public Defenders for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Phyllis C. Asayama, and Cassandra Thorp, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
A defendant may move to suppress evidence on the ground "[t]he search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable." ( Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).)1 Section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(2), requires the motion to be in writing, accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities that "set[s] forth the factual basis and legal authorities that demonstrate why the motion shall be granted."
Addressing this statutory language, the Supreme Court in People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 136, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52 ( Williams ) held,
When evidence has been obtained through a series of warrantless searches or seizures (here, a traffic stop, field sobriety tests, vehicle search and arrest), does a defendant satisfy his or her initial burden under Williams simply by asserting the police acted without a warrant or must the defendant's motion at least specify which of several searches or seizures potentially at issue he or she claims was unlawful? The trial court ruled, when multiple searches have occurred, more is required in moving papers than the statement there was no warrant. We agree: A defendant seeking to suppress evidence under section 1538.5, although not required to state the basis for his or her challenge to a warrantless search or seizure, must identify the government conduct being questioned. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandate filed by Thomas Darion Davis, seeking an order directing the appellate division of the superior court to require the trial court to hear Davis's motion to suppress on the merits.
Two sheriff's deputies observed Davis's car run a stop sign, swerve and veer toward the sidewalk, apparently unable to maintain a straight course. The deputies initiated a traffic stop to cite the driver and to investigate possible driving under the influence of alcohol. Upon contacting Davis, the deputies smelled alcohol and noticed his bloodshot eyes. The deputies detained Davis and conducted field sobriety tests. Preliminary alcohol screenings showed blood alcohol levels of .116% and .107%. The deputies then searched Davis's car and found an open can of beer, which was cold and one-quarter full. Davis was arrested and taken to a sheriff's station, where breath tests produced readings of a .10% blood alcohol level.
Davis was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol ( Veh. Code, § 23152, subds. (a) & (b) ) and having an open container of alcohol in his car ( Veh. Code, § 23226 ).
Davis pleaded not guilty to both charges and then moved to suppress evidence. His motion sought to exclude: Davis's motion did not specify which of the several warrantless searches and seizures that had taken place he claimed were unlawful, stating only,
The People opposed the motion to suppress, arguing, "Proper notice has not been provided to the [P]eople, as the defense's motion fails to specify the factual basis for the suppression motion as required under Penal Code 1538.5." The trial court agreed and denied the motion without a hearing and without prejudice, ruling Davis's motion to suppress was "vague and provide[d] insufficient notice to the People of what [was] being challenged and the basis for challenging it."
Davis petitioned for a writ of mandate in the appellate division of the superior court, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion without a hearing. The appellate division denied the petition, agreeing with the trial court that Davis's motion was insufficiently detailed. In its order the court explained,
Following the appellate division's ruling, Davis petitioned this court for a writ of mandate directing the appellate division to order the trial court to conduct a hearing on the merits of his motion to suppress. After considering the petition and the People's opposition, we issued an alternative writ to the appellate division, which declined to vacate its order. Davis filed a reply, and we heard oral argument.
The issue before us—the level of specificity required in the initial papers of a motion to suppress evidence seized by the police during a series of warrantless searches and seizures—is a question of law subject to our independent review. (See People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 893-894, 103 Cal.Rptr.2d 23, 15 P.3d 243.)
The Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. ( U.S. Const. 4th Amend.; People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 830–831, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232, 3 P.3d 878.) The question whether relevant evidence obtained by assertedly unlawful means—that is, in violation of the Fourth Amendment—must be excluded is determined by deciding whether its suppression is mandated by the federal Constitution. ( Cal. Const., art. I, § 24 ; People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1212, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189 ; see People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 916, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 288 P.3d 1259 ; People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 564, fn. 11, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 234 P.3d 377.)
A warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable, and the prosecution bears the burden of demonstrating a legal justification for the search. ( Williams , supra , 20 Cal.4th at pp. 127-128, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52 ; see People v. Macabeo , supra , 1 Cal.5th at p. 1212, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189 ; People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1053, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 130, 324 P.3d 1.) As the Supreme Court explained in Williams , although it is the defendant's obligation to bring a motion to suppress under section 1538.5, there is no reason to require defendants to guess what justifications the prosecution will offer for a warrantless search or seizure: "Because law enforcement personnel, not the defendant, made the decision to proceed without a warrant, they, not the defendant, are in the best position to know what justification, if any, they had for doing so." ( Williams , at p. 129, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52.) Accordingly, "when the basis of a motion to suppress is a warrantless search or seizure, the requisite specificity is generally satisfied, in the first instance, if defendants simply assert the absence of a warrant and make a prima facie showing to support that assertion." ( Id. at p. 130, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52.) Once the prosecution has offered a justification, however, the defendant must present any arguments as to why that justification is inadequate. "Otherwise, defendants would not meet their burden under section 1538.5 of specifying why the search or seizure without a warrant was ‘unreasonable.’ " ( Ibid . )
Davis and the People agree the specificity required in a motion to suppress evidence is governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Williams , supra , 20 Cal.4th 119, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52. In that case, in considering whether a criminal defendant's motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 was sufficiently specific to preserve an issue for appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized the difference between the burden of raising an issue and the burden of proof, explaining, [¶] ... ( Williams , at pp. 128-129, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275, 973 P.2d 52.)
Williams involved police surveillance of a pickup truck parked outside a home where it was suspected that drug activity occurred. The deputy sheriff involved called for backup and a short while later stopped the truck after the driver made a right turn at an intersection without signaling. The officer ran a check on the status of the defendant's driver's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Linares
...or seizure, defendants must present any arguments as to why that justification is inadequate"]; accord, Davis v. Appellate Division of SuperiorCourt (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 387, 392.) Moreover, there is no evidence the video was stored on a remote server. Hammons told Officer Armas she found ......
-
People v. Guzman
...for appellate review is not necessarily the fault of the prosecution; it is the waiver by appellant. (See Davis v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 387, 395.) Once the validity of the patdown is established, we review the removal and inspection of the tin canister.......
-
Search and seizure
...and seizures, the defendant must identify which of the searches and seizures are being challenged. Davis v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 387. In a typical DUI case, the defendant would simply contend that the enforcement stop was without reasonable suspicion, the arrest was without ......
-
Table of cases
...Court of Los Angeles (2018) ___Cal.App.5th ___ (Second Dist. COA, Div. 7 - Docket No. B286525), §7:84.2 Davis v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 387, §7:84.2 Davis v. U. S. (9th Cir. 1950) 185 F2d 938, §1:54.4 Davis v. U.S. (2011) 564 U.S. 229, 131 S.Ct. 2419, §§6:32.7, 7:63, 7:66.6, 7......
-
Table of Cases null
...Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974)—Ch. 5-E, §2.4.1 Davis v. Appellate Division of Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 5th 387, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 665 (2d Dist. 2018)—Ch. 5-A, §5.1.2 Davis v. City of Sacramento, 24 Cal. App. 4th 393, 29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 232 (3d Dist.......
-
Chapter 5 - §5. Procedure for excluding evidence
...or seizure was unreasonable, D must specify argument in pleadings); see, e.g., Davis v. Appellate Div. of Superior Ct. (2d Dist.2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 387, 390-91 (motion was insufficiently specific to provide prosecution with notice and basis for suppression); People v. Bush (3d Dist.2001) 8......