People v. Aguilar
| Decision Date | 22 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. D012311,D012311 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Luis Fernando AGUILAR, Defendant and Appellant. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Steven H. Zeigen and Esteban Hernandez, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence (PEN.CODE, § 1538.5)1 produced as a result of an impoundment inventory search of his car, Luis Fernando Aguilar (Aguilar) pleaded guilty to one count of possessing stolen property (§ 496). The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted him two years' probation. He appeals, contending the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We agree and therefore reverse the judgment.
The following facts are taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.
About 8:30 on a November evening, Officer Duran was patrolling Calipatria in Imperial County. He noticed four people carrying something which he thought was a television set. A television set had been reported stolen a few days earlier, and he thought the people were carrying that set. He saw something being put into the trunk of an older model Chevrolet, and two people get into the car and drive off. He followed the car.
The driver of the car stopped at an intersection beyond the limit line and made a right turn without signalling. Duran stopped the car and asked the driver, Aguilar, for his license and registration. Aguilar did not produce a license. Duran ran his name through a computer and discovered his license was suspended. Duran arrested Aguilar for driving with a suspended license.
Duran told Aguilar his car would be towed, and asked for the keys to do an inventory search for the towing company. After some prodding, Aguilar gave Duran the key to the trunk. Duran opened the trunk and saw what looked like a brand new tool box. He was unable to open the box and asked Aguilar for the key. Aguilar said he did not have the key with him. Aguilar also said the tool box was his. Duran told Aguilar the tool box looked expensive and would be taken to the police department for safekeeping. 2 While Duran was driving Aguilar to the county jail, Aguilar said the tool box was not his and he had obtained it about two days earlier.
Duran testified at the preliminary hearing he followed Aguilar's car because he suspected criminal activity and wanted to investigate; he intended to stop the car as soon as he saw a traffic violation; one of the reasons he had the car towed, i.e., impounded, was so he could look in the trunk (he never gave any other reasons for the impound); and he was required to conduct an inventory of every towed vehicle. Duran said he had discretion to decide whether to have a vehicle towed when the driver was stopped, i.e., cited, for a driving violation; there were written policies as to the exercise of such discretion; he had not seen the policies; and he had ninety percent of the vehicles towed.
Aguilar noticed a motion in superior court to suppress the tool box and his statements in relation thereto. The parties submitted the motion on the preliminary hearing transcript. The court denied the motion.
Aguilar pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property, and the remaining charged count, driving when privilege suspended for driving under the influence (Veh.Code, § 14601.2, subd. (a)) was dismissed. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted a two-year probation. This appeal followed.
Aguilar contends the warrantless search of the trunk of his car pursuant to an admittedly pretextual traffic stop was unreasonable. We agree. As the Ninth Circuit said in United States v. Hellman (9th Cir.1977) 556 F.2d 442, (Id. at p. 444.)
So it is in the case here. It is clear from Duran's testimony that the arrest and the impound were for "an investigatory police motive." As to the inventory, although Duran testified he was required to inventory every vehicle he impounded, this does not justify the inventory, but merely narrows the inquiry to the impound and the events leading thereto.
The People rely on the United States Supreme Court's opinions in South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 and Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739. However, those opinions do not support the search here.
In South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000, police officers impounded and searched an unoccupied car after they had ticketed it twice for illegal parking. In holding the search was reasonable, the Court noted "there is no suggestion whatever that this standard procedure, essentially like that followed throughout the country, was a pretext concealing an investigatory police motive." (Id. at p. 376, 96 S.Ct. at p. 3100.)
In Colorado v. Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739, a police officer arrested the driver of a van for driving under the influence, and another officer searched the van pending its impound. Departmental regulations required inventory of impounded vehicles, but gave the officers discretion to choose between impounding a vehicle and locking it in a public parking place. In upholding the search the Court reasoned:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miranda
...at p. 1189 [dis. opn. by Rubin, J.]; 1 LaFave, Search & Seizure, supra, § 1.4(e), p. 95.)8 Defendant also cites People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 279 Cal.Rptr. 246. However, that case involved the impoundment and inventory search of a car for which there was no objectively reaso......
-
People v. Torres
...custody"].) "[W]e focus on the purpose of the impound rather than the *787 purpose of the inventory." ( People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053, 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 ( Aguilar ).) "[A]n inventory search conducted pursuant to an unreasonable impound is itself unreasonable." ( People ......
-
People v. Lee, D073740
...inventory search, "we focus on the purpose of the impound rather than the purpose of the inventory." ( People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053, 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 ( Aguilar ).) "The decision to impound the vehicle must be justified by a community caretaking function ‘other than su......
-
People v. King
...officers' primary purpose was to search car and interrogate occupants in effort at " 'gang suppression' "]; People v. Aguilar (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1052, 279 Cal.Rptr. 246 [arrest for driving with suspended license, after traffic stop, was invalid because done for " 'an investigatory ......
-
Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
...have been reasonable under the circumstances. See South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 373; People v. Aguilar (4th Dist.1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1053. The focus of the reasonableness inquiry is on the decision to impound, not on the inventory search itself. Aguilar, 228 Cal.App.3......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Aguilar, 48 Cal. App. 4th 632, 55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 716 (6th Dist. 1996)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(3)(h); D, §5.1 People v. Aguilar, 228 Cal. App. 3d 1049, 279 Cal. Rptr. 246 (4th Dist. 1991)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.3(1) People v. Aguilar, 218 Cal. App. 3d 1556, 267 Cal. Rptr. 879 (2d Dist. 1990)—Ch. 3-B......