People v. Branner, C059288.

• Decision Date: 17 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. C059288.,C059288.
• Citation: 180 Cal.App.4th 308,103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASPER DWIGHT BRANNER, Defendant and Appellant.

180 Cal.App.4th 308

103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 256

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASPER DWIGHT BRANNER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. C059288.

Court of Appeals of California, Third District.

December 17, 2009.

As modified January 11, 2010.

Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, David A. Rhodes, Brian G. Smiley and Darren K. Indermill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SCOTLAND, P. J.

Almost a century ago, when it created the exclusionary rule to deter improper conduct by law enforcement officers, the United States Supreme Court held the guilty must go free when evidence essential for their convictions was obtained by an officer in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure enshrined in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [58 L.Ed. 652, 34 S.Ct. 341]; see also United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 906 [82 L.Ed.2d 677, 687, 104 S.Ct. 3405]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 81 S.Ct. 1684].)

A question posed in this case is whether the guilty must go free when (1) at the time such evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer, a decision of the United States Supreme Court instructed the officer that the manner in which he searched for and seized the evidence was lawful, but (2) thereafter, the Supreme Court changed its mind. As we will explain, the answer is "No."

Although it may be that a "criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered" (People v. Defore (1926) 242 N.Y. 13, 21 ), the guilty should not go free when the constable did precisely what the United States Supreme Court told him he could do, but the court later decides it is the one that blundered. Evidence seized during a search that was lawful pursuant to Supreme Court precedent existing at the time, but later overruled by the court, should not be excluded for two reasons: (1) "the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates" (United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at p. 916 ) and, therefore, if a search by an officer complies with a court ruling that allows the officer to so act, "[p]enalizing the officer for the [court's] error, rather than his own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth Amendment violations" (id. at pp. 918, 921 ); and (2) applying the exclusionary rule in such a circumstance would have "substantial social costs" due to the "objectionable collateral consequence of [the rule's] interference with the criminal justice system's truth-finding function [by allowing] some guilty defendants [to] go free or receive reduced sentences" (id. at p. 907 ).

This principle, known as the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, applies to the search and seizure in this case.

Defendant Jasper Dwight Branner, who was required to register as a convicted drug offender (Health & Saf. Code, § 11590), was arrested when officers investigating Vehicle Code violations discovered that he had not complied with the drug offender registration requirements, a misdemeanor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11594). Incident to defendant's arrest, officers searched the passenger compartment of his vehicle while defendant was in the back of a patrol car. Cocaine base and a gun were found.

When conducted on December 17, 2004, the search and seizure were lawful. (New York v. Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454, 460 [69 L.Ed.2d 768, 775, 101 S.Ct. 2860] (hereafter Belton) [to establish a "straightforward," "workable rule" that informs a person of "the scope of his constitutional protection" and lets a law enforcement officer "know the scope of his authority" under various factual situations, the Supreme Court held that, when an officer "has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile" and "any containers found" there, even if the person arrested is no longer in the car (id. at pp. 456, 459-460, 462-463 , fn. omitted)]; U.S. v. Humphrey (10th Cir. 2000) 208 F.3d 1190, 1196, 1202 ["to provide specific and coherent guidance to officers in the field" who arrest the occupant of a vehicle, Belton "created a `bright line' rule" authorizing officers to search, incident to arrest, the passenger compartment of the vehicle "without regard to the nature of the offense for which he was arrested" and regardless of whether the person "had been restrained," e.g., Humphrey had been handcuffed and placed in a patrol car].)

Today, the search and seizure are deemed unlawful, unless it was reasonable to believe the car contained evidence of the offense for which the defendant was arrested. (Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. ___, ___ [173 L.Ed.2d 485, 501, 129 S.Ct. 1710] (hereafter Gant) [officers "may search incident to arrest only the space within an arrestee's `"immediate control,"' meaning `the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence . . .' [citation]"; hence, a warrantless "vehicle search incident to a recent occupant's arrest [may not be done] after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle" (id. at p. ___ ), unless "it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest" (id. at p. ___ )].)

Because the officers relied in good faith on the teaching of Belton, the exclusionary rule does not apply even though the holding of Gant is retroactive to this case. (See United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at pp. 916, 918 .)

Nevertheless, defendant contends the officers' discovery that he had failed to comply with drug offender registration requirements was the product of an unlawfully prolonged detention (citing People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577 [159 Cal.Rptr. 191, 601 P.2d 207] (hereafter McGaughran)), thus invalidating the ensuing search incident to defendant's arrest for the registration violation. The contention fails because changes in search and seizure law subsequent to the California Supreme Court's ruling in McGaughran make McGaughran obsolete and inapplicable to this case. In 1982, three years after McGaughran, California's voters added a provision to our state Constitution that precludes suppression of relevant evidence in a criminal case unless compelled by federal law. (See People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 605 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 41 P.3d 59].) Under federal law, an officer may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest a person who in the officer's presence commits "even a very minor criminal offense" (Atwater v. Lago Vista (2001) 532 U.S. 318, 354 [149 L.Ed.2d 549, 577, 121 S.Ct. 1536]), such as a Vehicle Code violation. Consequently, the McGaughran limit on the time an officer may detain a Vehicle Code violator is no longer the law in California for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. (People v. McKay, supra, at pp. 607-619.)

Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment in this case.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

While conducting surveillance of an apartment complex because of complaints of drug sales in its parking lot, officers saw defendant's Jeep Wagoneer travel from Howe Avenue into the complex. On a prior occasion, the officers had seen defendant in the vehicle at the apartment complex and knew he "was an 11590 drug registrant." (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11590 [a person convicted of certain drug crimes must register as a drug offender].) The rear license plate light of defendant's vehicle was not working (Veh. Code, §§ 24252, subd. (a), 24601), and one of the headlights was misaligned so that it illuminated the ground four to five feet in front of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 24409). When the vehicle stopped and one of its passengers got out and started urinating on the wall of an apartment building, the officers approached and detained defendant due to the Vehicle Code violations. Asked if he was on probation or parole, or had outstanding arrest warrants, defendant said no. In response to a request for identification, defendant presented his driver's license. A records check, which took "probably less than five minutes," revealed the last address on defendant's drug offender registration. When asked if he was still living there, defendant said no, that he had been living with his mother for the past eight to 12 months. Believing that defendant was in violation of the drug offender registration requirements, an officer arrested him and put him in the back of an unmarked patrol car. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11594 [requires reregistering within 10 days of changing residences; failure to do so is a misdemeanor].) Officers then searched the passenger compartment of defendant's vehicle and found a gun and cocaine base. The entire encounter, from urination to arrest, took approximately 15 minutes.

Defendant was charged with possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), transporting cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)), and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for possessing cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a).)

After his motion to suppress evidence of the gun and cocaine base was denied, defendant pled no contest to possessing cocaine base and admitted the prior conviction allegation. The other charges were dismissed, and he was sentenced to the low term of three years for the drug charge, plus a consecutive term of three years for the prior conviction enhancement. The court also imposed various fines and fees.

Defendant appealed and on April 20, 2009, we...