People v. Espindola
| Decision Date | 13 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | E072426 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMILIO ESPINDOLA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINIONAPPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan K. Stodghill, Judge. Affirmed.
Michaela Dalton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Seth M. Friedman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 3, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Emilio Espindola, Jr., with transportation of a controlled substance under Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) (count 1). Four months later, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code1 section 1538.5. On March 9, 2017, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress with the preliminary hearing. The court denied defendant's motion.
On May 17, 2018, defendant filed a second section 1538.5 motion to suppress. The People filed an opposition stating that the motion should be denied because defendant failed to establish changed circumstances; defendant withdrew the motion to suppress on the date of the hearing.
On March 12, 2019, defendant pled no contest to count 1. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years in state prison, suspended, pending successful completion of 36 months on probation. The court also sentenced defendant to serve 28 days in county jail as a condition of probation.
On March 22, 2019, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On April 8, 2019, defendant filed an amended notice of appeal. On August 5, 2019, defendant filed apetition for writ of habeas corpus. On August 20, 2019, we issued an order that the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be considered with the appeal.2
On June 1, 2016, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Detective Antonio Juarez was conducting traffic stops on the 15 freeway near Barstow, California as part of a "highway interdiction team." Detective Juarez was there with the K9 Unit and he had his "drug detection" dog with him.
Around 10:00 a.m., Detective Juarez stopped a Nissan Maxima for following another vehicle too closely on the highway. Defendant was driving and his girlfriend was in the front passenger seat.
Detective Juarez contacted defendant and explained the reason for the stop. The detective asked defendant for his license and car registration. Defendant told the detective that he had a suspended license and the car belonged to a friend. Defendant provided an identification card and the vehicle registration.
Detective Juarez asked defendant to step outside of the vehicle to go over the documentation and to ask a few questions. This was consistent with what the detective normally did. The detective asked defendant where he was driving; defendant explained that he and his girlfriend were taking a trip from San Diego to Las Vegas to visit family.The detective stated that he was not at this point in the process of writing a citation for following too closely or driving without a license. The detective then asked defendant to wait by the car while he conducted a records check of defendant's license. When the detective ran a license check, it confirmed that defendant's license was expired.
After conducting the records check, Detective Juarez exited his vehicle and went back to speak with defendant. At that point, it had been approximately five minutes into the stop. The detective asked defendant if there was anything illegal in the car, like guns or drugs. Defendant said no. When the detective asked defendant for permission to search the car, defendant said yes.
Detective Juarez brought his dog from his vehicle over to the Nissan. The dog alerted at the rear door on the driver's side. Inside the car, the detective discovered 10 packages hidden under the backseat cushion. The packages collectively weighed 4.6 pounds and contained heroin.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the search of the car was unconstitutional. The People contend that defendant waived his claim. As will be discussed below, because we find defendant's contention fails on the merits, we need not consider the People's waiver argument.
"The Fourth Amendment guarantees '[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' " (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809-218.) Although a traffic stop"constitutes a 'seizure' of 'persons' within the meaning of" the Fourth Amendment, such a seizure is constitutionally "reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred." (Ibid.) But "a seizure that is lawful at its inception can violate the Fourth Amendment if its manner of execution unreasonably infringes interests protected by the Constitution." (Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.) Thus, "[a] seizure that is justified solely by the interest in issuing a warning ticket to the driver can become unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission." (Ibid.)
In Rodriguez v. United States (2015) 575 U.S. 348 (Rodriguez), the United States Supreme Court considered these principles in the context of a canine sniff conducted during a traffic stop. The officer initiated a traffic stop after the defendant drove on the shoulder of the freeway. (Id. at pp. 351-352.) The officer checked the records of the driver and passenger and then called for a second officer while he began writing a warning. The officer explained the warning to the driver, and returned the driver's and passenger's documentation; the officer then prolonged the stop by an additional seven or eight minutes while he had his dog conduct a sniff that "revealed a large bag of methamphetamine." (Id. at p. 352.) The district court concluded that although the canine sniff was not supported by reasonable suspicion, the additional delay was a constitutionally permissible de minimis intrusion on the defendant's constitutional rights. (Id. at p. 353.) The Eighth Circuit affirmed. (Ibid.)
The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at pp. 350-351.) "Authority for the seizure thus ends when [the] tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed" (id. at p. 354), unless "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining [the defendant] beyond completion of the traffic infraction investigation" (id. at p. 358).
The Rodriguez court elaborated on the scope of the traffic-stop mission: "Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer's mission includes 'ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.' " (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 355.) (Id. at p. 349.) A canine sniff, however, "is not fairly characterized as part of the officer's traffic mission." (Ibid.) Thus, police may prolong a traffic stop to conduct a canine sniff only if the need for the sniff is independently supported by reasonable suspicion. (Ibid.)
Reasonable suspicion requires "the detaining officer [to] point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity." (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231.) The reasonable suspicionstandard "is not a particularly demanding one, but is, instead, 'considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence.' " (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 146.)
The Rodriguez court remanded for a factual determination of whether reasonable suspicion justified detaining the defendant longer than was necessary to complete the traffic-stop mission. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 358.)
In reviewing the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)
Defendant does not challenge the validity of the initial traffic stop. Thus, under Rodriguez, Detective Juarez was entitled to detain defendant for as long as it took (or reasonably should have taken) to complete the "traffic-stop" mission. (Rodriguez, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 354.) This mission included "determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, . . . checking the driver's license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against...
To continue reading
Request your trial