People v. Hernandez

• Decision Date: 28 March 1988
• Citation: 199 Cal.App.3d 1182,245 Cal.Rptr. 513
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose Isabel HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Crim. C001799.

Page 513

245 Cal.Rptr. 513

199 Cal.App.3d 1182

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jose Isabel HERNANDEZ, et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Crim. C001799.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

March 28, 1988.

Certified for Partial Publication ^*

Review Denied June 22, 1988.

James M. Fahey, Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendants and appellants

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Joel Carey and Robert R. Anderson, Deputy Attys. Gen. for plaintiff and respondent.

SIMS, Associate Justice.

In this case police discovered evidence in one of several bedrooms in a house where each bedroom was occupied by a different person. The issue before us is whether a person who does not live in the bedroom in which the evidence was discovered, and who has never been given permission to enter the room, has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that room sufficient to challenge the introduction of the evidence on the ground it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude such a person has no privacy interest in a room from which he has been excluded and consequently may not challenge the introduction of evidence seized in that room.

Defendants Jose Isabel Hernandez (also known as Juan Garcia), Gabriel Rodriguez and Jose Antonio Paz appeal judgments of conviction arising out of their participation in the sale of heroin. Hernandez was convicted of sale of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352); Rodriguez was convicted of conspiracy to sell heroin (Pen.Code, § 182) and possession of heroin with intent to sell (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351) in an amount exceeding 14.25 grams (Pen.Code, § 1203.07, subd. (a)(1)) while being armed with a firearm. (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (a).) Paz pled guilty to conspiracy and possession for sale counts and admitted allegations of being armed and possessing more than 14.25 grams.

Defendants contend the prosecutor committed misconduct. They also contend their motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) was erroneously denied because, they assert, the police unlawfully detained defendants Rodriquez and Paz while they were riding in an automobile. In an unpublished portion of this opinion, we reject these contentions.

In this published portion, we consider defendants Rodriguez's and Paz's contentions that their motion to suppress was erroneously denied with respect to heroin discovered in a bedroom in a house where they were living. ¹

DISCUSSION

I ^**

II

The trial court properly refused to suppress heroin discovered in the northeast bedroom at 149 Cathcart Street.

"An appellate court's review of a motion to suppress evidence is ... governed by well-settled principles. The trial court's factual findings relating to the challenged search or seizure, 'whether express or implied, must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.' [Citation.] ' "The trial court also has the duty to determine whether, on the facts found, the search was unreasonable within the meaning of the Constitution." [Citation.] Because "that issue is a question of law," the appellate court is not bound by the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the trial court's decision thereon. Rather, ... in such review it is "the ultimate responsibility of the appellate court to measure the facts, as found by the trier, against the constitutional standard of reasonableness." [Citation.] On that issue, in short, the appellate court exercises its independent judgment.' [Citations.]" (People v. Loewen (1983) 35 Cal.3d 117, 123, 196 Cal.Rptr. 846, 672 P.2d 436.)

A. Facts relating to the search of the residence at 149 Cathcart Street.

Defendants' motion to suppress in superior court (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) was submitted on evidence taken at the preliminary hearing, supplemented by live testimony. Viewed in the light most favorable to the ruling of the lower court (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 107, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135), the evidence showed the following:

Based upon information received from outside sources and confirmed by their own surveillance, Sacramento police suspected the residents of a house at 149 Cathcart Street were involved in narcotics activity and were using their cars to facilitate transactions. Acting on that suspicion, on June 25, 1986, officers stopped a car in which defendants Rodriguez and Paz were riding. After discovering that the occupants of the car were illegal aliens, the officers transported defendants to the police station for booking and then to jail.

Detective Thomas Backer spoke with Rodriguez at the jail shortly after he was arrested. Rodriguez said he was an illegal alien and he lived at 149 Cathcart Street. Backer asked Rodriguez for permission to search the house for heroin. Rodriguez said he could. Backer brought Schiele into the room and again requested permission to search for heroin. Rodriguez, who indicated he was in control of the house, said "yes, let's go."

The officers took Rodriguez with them back to 149 Cathcart Street. On the way, Rodriguez told Detective Backer that other people lived in the house. Backer learned that Rodriguez and his wife occupied one bedroom and Paz another.

When they entered the house, Officer Gary Bettenhausen assisted in a cursory preliminary search of the house to ensure the officers' safety. Officer Bettenhausen went into the northeast bedroom where he found and seized two guns. Before removing the guns, Bettenhausen spotted a piano bench he thought he could use as a platform for packaging seized evidence and writing notes about the evidence. He had no clue that the piano bench was associated with anything relating to narcotics, nor did he suspect it had an inner compartment. In fact, the piano bench did have an inner compartment that was revealed when Bettenhausen grasped the lid to pick it up. Contained within were a scale, a dinner plate, and individually packaged pieces of what he believed was tar heroin, which he confiscated.

After the discovery of heroin in the piano bench, Rodriguez indicated that the bedroom was used by Paz. Officer Backer telephoned Officer Santiago Garcia at the police station and asked him to get consent to search the room from Paz. When asked by Officer Garcia (in Spanish) whether a search of his bedroom was permissible, Paz

                said, "Yes, go ahead."   Garcia relayed this information to Backer.  A short time later, Backer called Garcia again to say that Rodriguez had indicated Paz actually occupied two bedrooms.  Garcia spoke to Paz once more.  Paz described some personal property in his bedroom;  the property was located in the northwest bedroom
                

B. Rodriguez validly consented to a search of the house.

Defendants argue that Rodriguez's consent to search the house at 149 Cathcart Street was involuntarily given because of his lack of education and his unawareness of his constitutional rights, and because he was not read his Miranda rights ³ nor told he could refuse his consent to the search. In addition, defendants argue Rodriguez was in a vulnerable state of mind because he "found himself in a foreign jail in the custody of foreign police." If this argument is correct, the police had no authority to enter the house and any evidence seized from within should have been excluded.

The prosecution has the burden to establish that the consent upon which a search is based was voluntarily given and was unaffected by duress or coercion. ( People v. James, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 106, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135.) The superior court's findings, either express or implied, will be upheld on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence. ( Id., at p. 107, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135.) On appeal all presumptions favor the proper exercise of the trial court's power to judge the credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw inferences. (People v. Ratliff (1986) 41 Cal.3d 675, 686, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665.)

In this case, the prosecution presented facts to show that Rodriguez, who spoke English and seemed to understand the officers' questions, unhesitatingly agreed to the request to permit a search of the residence. Although Rodriguez was in custody, "the fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced ... consent to search." (United States v. Watson (1976) 423 U.S. 411, 424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 828, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, 609.) The fact defendant is in custody must be weighed with all other relevant facts. ( People v. Ratliff, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 686-687, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665; People v. James, supra, 19 Cal.3d at pp. 109-110, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135.) There was no evidence to show the officers displayed their weapons or other signs of force (compare People v. Challoner (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 779, 782, 186 Cal.Rptr. 458), or that they made any improper inducements to obtain consent. The officers "did not claim the right to search without permission, nor act as if [they] intended to enter regardless of defendant's answer." ( James, supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 113, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135.)

Nor was Rodriguez's consent invalid because he had received no Miranda warnings. Such warnings are not required to validate a consent to search. (Id., at pp. 114-115, 137 Cal.Rptr. 447, 561 P.2d 1135; followed in People v. Ratliff, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 686, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665.) Nor were the officers obligated to tell Rodriguez he could refuse to consent to the search. (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 231-234, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2050-51, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 865-867.)

Substantial evidence supports the trial court's implied finding that Rodriguez lawfully consented to a search of the house. ( Ratliff, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 687, 224 Cal.Rptr. 705, 715 P.2d 665.)

C. Defendants may not challenge the introduction into evidence of the heroin.

We now turn to the evidence discovered in the piano bench...