People v. Lee, D073740

Decision Date03 October 2019
Docket NumberD073740
Citation40 Cal.App.5th 853,253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Brandon Lance LEE, Defendant and Respondent.

Summer Stephan, District Attorney, Mark A. Amador, Linh Lam, Christine Bannon and Anne Spitzberg, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sandra Gillies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

DATO, J.

Following a traffic stop, officers searched Brandon Lance Lee's car without a warrant and discovered 56 grams of cocaine, a firearm, and other items associated with selling narcotics. After Lee was charged with various drug and weapons offenses, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless vehicle search. The trial court granted Lee's motion, rejecting the People's contentions that the search was proper under the automobile exception as supported by probable cause or, alternatively, as an inventory search of a vehicle following an impound. Reviewing that order, we rely on the trial court's express and implied factual findings, provided they are supported by substantial evidence, to independently determine whether the search was constitutional.

In evaluating the People's reliance on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, we weigh the totality of the circumstances to determine whether officers had probable cause to search Lee's car. Our analysis, like that of the trial court, does not overlook the small, permissible amount of marijuana found in Lee's pocket. But following the legalization of marijuana in 2016, California law now expressly provides that legal cannabis and related products "are not contraband" and their possession and/or use "shall not constitute the basis for detention, search, or arrest." ( Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (c).) As a result, the trial court properly concluded that Lee's possession of a small amount of marijuana was of little relevance in assessing probable cause. Because the other factors relied on by the People were also of minimal significance, we conclude that even considering the totality of circumstances known to the officer there did not exist " "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found." " ( Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 ( Alabama ).)

We likewise find no error in the trial court's conclusion that the search was not valid as an inventory search. The search here served no community caretaking function. And based on the manner in which the search was conducted and the statements of the officer to Lee and his passenger, the trial court reasonably found that the primary purpose of the search was not to inventory the contents of Lee's car, but rather to investigate Lee for possible criminal behavior.

We therefore affirm the order granting Lee's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the unlawful search of his car.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1
A. The Traffic Stop and Subsequent Search

One evening in August 2017, Officers Carlos Robles and Thomas Cooper of the San Diego Police Department observed a gold-colored Cadillac DeVille with no front license plate and tinted windows in possible violation of Vehicle Code section 26708. They initiated a traffic stop and parked their vehicle near the Cadillac outside an apartment complex. Cooper approached the passenger side to speak with the front seat passenger, Michael H.2 Robles walked to the driver's window and asked the driver, defendant Lee, for his driver's license. Lee said he did not have his license with him. Robles instructed Lee to step out of the vehicle and performed a pat-down search to confirm he did not have any sort of identification.

During this search, Officer Robles discovered a bag containing a small amount of marijuana and a wad of cash in Lee's pocket.3 Robles asked if he delivered medical marijuana; Lee replied, "Yes sir." Robles started to handcuff Lee when, according to Robles, Lee "tensed up." Lee then leaned back into the car and said something to Michael.4 Robles then walked Lee to his patrol car and placed him in the back seat. Lee told Robles the Cadillac belonged to him and provided his name and date of birth.5

Cooper ran the two individuals' names while Robles spoke with Michael. Robles asked what happened to the money he had previously seen on the Cadillac's center console. Michael showed it to Robles and flipped through the bills, counting ten dollars in total. Cooper's searches revealed that Lee's license was suspended and Michael did not have a license. In addition, Michael had been arrested in the past for making criminal threats. Robles instructed Michael to exit the car to be placed in handcuffs. He explained that Michael would be free to leave if nothing was found during the vehicle search.

Officer Robles then spoke with Lee about his suspended license. Lee stated he knew his license had been suspended and explained it was the result of a failure to appear in court. Robles asked Lee if there was anything illegal in the car, and Lee told him there was not. Robles asked again and told him he was going to search the car because it was being impounded due to his suspended license.6 Lee offered to have someone come pick up the car for him, but Robles told him, "That's not going to work." Robles asked Lee a third time if there was anything illegal in the car, and Lee again responded no. Lee began to ask if he could grab something from the car, and Robles told Lee he could take whatever he needed after the search confirmed there was nothing illegal in the car.

Robles began to search the Cadillac, starting with the front passenger seat. He examined the space between the seat and the center console, then under the seat. He attempted to access the glovebox, but it was locked. He opened both compartments of the center console and examined several items inside. He activated the screen of a cell phone sitting next to the center console.

Moving to the backseat, Robles pulled the bench seat up and used a flashlight to examine the space underneath. After he returned the seat to a resting position, he pulled down the center backseat armrest and discovered it provided access to the trunk. A black backpack sitting in the trunk became visible once the armrest had been pulled down. Robles took the backpack out of the trunk. He found a firearm in the backpack's main compartment and a large sum of money in its front pocket.

Robles returned to his patrol car and twice asked Lee if there was anything in the Cadillac he needed to discuss with the officers. Lee said no both times. Robles also asked Michael if he knew about anything illegal in the car, and Michael said he did not. Robles continued searching the car, looking under the driver's side seat and the driver's side floormat. He examined the space between the center console and the driver's side seat. He briefly searched the backseat area once more, including the back pocket of the driver's seat.

Robles again returned to his patrol car and had Lee step out and face the vehicle. He searched Lee's person for the keys to the glovebox and, not finding them, ultimately requested and retrieved them from Michael. Using the key to open the glovebox, he found inside a white envelope with two egg-sized plastic baggies containing a white powdery substance. The substance was later determined to be about 56 grams, or two ounces, of cocaine. He also found more small plastic baggies, a kitchen knife, and a small glass container. A further search of the vehicle revealed several small digital scales.

Robles did not fill out the impound form (ARJIS-11) at the scene when he performed his search as he did not have a copy of the form with him. This form was filled out by another officer, who conducted his own search of the Cadillac at a later time after it was impounded. Robles did not assist with filling out the form.

The San Diego County District Attorney charged Lee with transportation of cocaine not for personal use while armed with a firearm ( Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a) ;7 Pen. Code, §§ 1210, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (c), count 1); possession for sale of cocaine weighing more than 28.5 grams while armed with a firearm ( Health & Saf. Code, § 11351 ; Pen. Code, §§ 1203.073, subd. (b)(1), 12022, subd. (c), count 2); having a concealed firearm in a vehicle ( Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(1), count 3); and possession of a large-capacity magazine ( Pen. Code, § 32310, subd. (c), count 4).

B. Lee's Suppression Motion

After the preliminary hearing, Lee filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his car, claiming it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. ( U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) The People argued the search was permitted as an inventory search, or alternatively that there was probable cause to search the vehicle. At the motion hearing, Officer Robles testified he performed an inventory search as part of his impounding the Cadillac. When pressed why he searched unusual places such as underneath the back seat, he said that in his experience people commonly keep valuables or hide illegal items there. Robles acknowledged that the small bag of marijuana in Lee's pocket contained an amount consistent with personal use and was not illegal on its own. And he agreed that the money in Lee's pockets combined with the legal amount of marijuana was not evidence of a crime. As Robles further explained, he asked Lee if he was involved in medical marijuana delivery because several illegal delivery services had recently emerged.

The trial court granted Lee's motion to suppress, concluding that although the initial traffic stop was lawful, the subsequent vehicle search was not an inventory search, not one incident to arrest, and not supported by probable cause. The court found that the manner in which Officer Robles searched the vehicle and his repeated questions to Lee about...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • People v. Sims
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 12, 2021
    ...evidence standard, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order." ( People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 860–861, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512 ( Lee ).)Automobile Exception The trial court found the search of the defendant's vehicle was constitutionally permiss......
  • United States v. Maffei
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • October 11, 2019
    ...not persuade, as it overstates the court's holding. 27 Cal.App.5th 553, 238 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 (2018) ; see also People v. Lee , 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 861–66, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512 (2019). Although the government is correct that marijuana remains highly regulated under California law, Fews does no......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2020
    ...of Strasburg ’s holding that the odor of marijuana alone establishes probable cause post-Proposition 64. ( People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 865, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512 [Proposition 64 "appear[s] to undercut much of Strasburg ’s probable cause analysis"].) Waxler is similarly affected b......
  • People v. Moore
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2021
    ...possess. (See, e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a) [permitting possession of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis].)Defendant relies on Lee to support his argument that Bennett's admission of recently smoking marijuana and the empty jar containing what appeared to be marijuana residue he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • April 1, 2022
    ...must exist to believe that there are drugs in excess of legally permissible amounts in order to permit a search) • People v. Lee , 40 Cal. App. 5th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (possession of a small amount of marijuana in a driver’s pocket is not contraband and is of little relevance in determ......
  • Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...must exist to believe that there are drugs in excess of legally permissible amounts in order to permit a search) • People v. Lee , 40 Cal. App. 5th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (possession of a small amount of marijuana in a driver’s pocket is not contraband and is of little relevance in determ......
  • Search and seizure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...inside his vehicle, and a suspect violating the cannabis open container law by smoking a joint while driving. People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853 subsequently affirmed a suppression order in a somewhat similar case, declaring that “[t]he recent legalization of marijuana in California me......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...People v. Ledbetter (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 896, §13:14.1 People v. Lee (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 836, 839, §7:20.15 People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, §7:64 People v. Leffel (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 575, §1:31.1 People v. Lemus (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 470, Appendix E People v. Lenix (2008) 44 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT