People v. Fisher, No. H013261

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN
• Citation: 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 57,38 Cal.App.4th 338
• Parties: , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7338, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,480 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Scott Monroe FISHER, Defendant and Appellant.
• Decision Date: 15 September 1995
• Docket Number: No. H013261

Page 57

45 Cal.Rptr.2d 57 38 Cal.App.4th 338, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7338, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,480 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Scott Monroe FISHER, Defendant and Appellant. No. H013261. Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California. Sept. 15, 1995.

[38 Cal.App.4th 341] Joshua Weinstein, Sixth District Appellate Program, Santa Clara, Naomi Hirayasu, San Jose, for appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

Page 58

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, Acting Presiding Justice.

After the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant Scott Monroe Fisher pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and the misdemeanor of being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted that he had a prior conviction of a serious or violent felony (Pen.Code, § 667), namely assault with personal use of a deadly weapon, and that he had served two prior prison terms (Pen.Code, § 667.5).

The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison, based on the lower term of 16 months for the felony, doubled under the "three strikes" law. The court struck the prison prior enhancements pursuant to the plea bargain.

Defendant contends on appeal that the police had no basis to detain him, since he was the passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment.

Facts

The suppression motion was made at a special hearing in the superior court. We do not review the preliminary examination transcript as there was no stipulation to its consideration by the superior court. (People v. Neighbours (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1118-1120, 273 Cal.Rptr. 32.) The evidence at the hearing was essentially uncontradicted. " 'Insofar as the evidence is uncontradicted, we do not engage in a substantial evidence [38 Cal.App.4th 342] review, but face pure questions of law.' " (People v. Trujillo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1219, 1224, 266 Cal.Rptr. 473.) To the extent there were factual conflicts, we resolve them in favor of the superior court's implied findings. (Id. at pp. 1223-1224, 266 Cal.Rptr. 473.)

On June 1, 1994, at about 4:20 a.m., San Jose Police Officer Richard Tomlin was on patrol in a marked vehicle. He noticed a Mazda car painted primer gray that fit the description of a vehicle used in auto burglaries. He paced the car traveling 40 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. residential zone. He turned on the patrol car's nonflashing red and blue lights and stopped the Mazda. The stop was about one-quarter to one-half mile away from a high-crime area. Two men occupied the car, the driver and the passenger in the front seat. The officer approached the driver, shining his flashlight into the car. The driver appeared to be under the influence of something. His eyes were glassy and bloodshot. He had a blank stare. He said he had no identification. His speech was slurred. The officer thought he smelled alcohol. The officer asked the driver to get out of the car.

When the driver was out of the car and standing near the curb, the officer pat-searched him. He found no weapons. The officer made additional observations. The driver's pupils were constricted and unresponsive to light. His eyelids fluttered when his eyes were closed. His pulse was elevated. His skin felt warm.

The officer told the driver that he appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. The officer asked if he had any narcotics. The driver said he had a bindle of crank (a term for methamphetamine) between the seats. The officer arrested and handcuffed the driver and placed him in the patrol car. The officer asked the driver if he could search the car. The driver said, "yes."

Officer Tomlin approached the passenger's door to talk to defendant. Defendant had remained seated in the car during Tomlin's five- to ten-minute encounter with the driver. By this time, another officer had arrived and positioned himself on the sidewalk to cover Tomlin. At that time Tomlin was unaware if defendant was on parole. ¹

Defendant stepped out of the car at Tomlin's request. Tomlin made the request so that he could retrieve the methamphetamine. It can be dangerous for an officer to search a vehicle containing a passenger. Tomlin also wanted to see if defendant could identify the driver.

Page 59

[38 Cal.App.4th 343] Defendant was wearing a loose jacket that was open in the front. Tomlin pat-searched defendant "[j]ust to ascertain whether there were weapons or not." He found no weapons. Tomlin tried to explain to defendant why he asked him to get out of the car. He asked defendant to identify the driver. Tomlin moved defendant over near the front of the patrol car.

As Tomlin talked to defendant, Tomlin made the following observations. Defendant's eyes were glassy. His pupils were dilated and nonreactive. He displayed eyelid tremors. His skin was hot. His mouth was dry. His pulse rate was about 120 beats a minute.

Tomlin told defendant that he appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. Tomlin asked defendant if he had narcotics in the car. Defendant said he had a bindle of crank on the floor.

The Basis for the Detention

On appeal defendant contends that there was no basis for the police to detain him. The detention occurred, according to defendant, either when the car was stopped, when he was asked to get out of the car, or when he was pat-searched. Defendant seeks suppression of the officer's observations of him and his admission, but he does not seek suppression of the methamphetamine subsequently found in the car.

The People concede that defendant was detained when he was pat-searched (In re Frank V. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1240, fn. 3, 285 Cal.Rptr. 16), but contend he was not detained before that time.

In...