People v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 27 October 2016
• Docket Number: C078537
• Citation: People v. Lopez, 4 Cal.App.5th 815, 208 Cal.Rptr.3d 838 (Cal. App. 2016)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maria Elena LOPEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

4 Cal.App.5th 815

208 Cal.Rptr.3d 838

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Maria Elena LOPEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

C078537

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed October 27, 2016

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing November 14, 2016

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorneys General, Catherine Chatman, Larenda R. Delaini, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Solomon Wollack, Pleasant Hill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

HOCH, J.

The People appeal from the trial court's orders granting defendant Maria Elena Lopez's pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code ¹section 1538.5 and dismissing the case in furtherance of justice under section 1385. The suppression issue involves the following basic facts: defendant was outside her car when a police officer, who watched her park the car, asked whether she had a driver's license; when defendant said she did not, the officer asked whether she had any identification and defendant said she thought it was in the car; the officer then placed her in handcuffs and another officer retrieved a purse from the car; the subsequent search of the purse for identification uncovered a small amount of methamphetamine.

The Attorney General contends the methamphetamine was found during a lawful search for identification under In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581, 38 P.3d 433 (Arturo D. ) and the trial court erroneously ruled the United States Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (Gant ) compelled suppression of the evidence. Defendant asserts the officer unlawfully detained her when he approached and asked whether she had a driver's license, Arturo D. is no longer good law following Gant, and, even if Arturo D. remains good law, the search of her purse for identification was nevertheless unlawful on these facts. We agree with the Attorney General's assessment of the issue and reverse the trial court's orders granting the suppression motion and dismissing the case against defendant.

BACKGROUND

On the morning of July 4, 2014, Officer Jeff Moe of the Woodland Police Department was in his patrol car when he received a dispatch regarding a report of a particular car “driving erratically” at a certain intersection not far from his location. The officer drove to that intersection, but did not locate the car. He then had dispatch run the license plate number provided during the initial report and drove to the address associated with that license plate number, which was one block away. The car was not there either, prompting the officer to resume his normal patrol duties. Later in the day, the officer received another dispatch regarding the same car. This dispatch advised that a person identified as “Marlena” was driving at a different intersection, not far from where the first report of erratic driving was claimed to have occurred, and that “Marlena had been drinking all day.” The officer again responded to the intersection identified in the report. Again unable to locate the car, the officer returned to the address associated with the car's license plate number, and parked nearby. A few minutes later, the car the officer was looking for pulled up and parked on the street in front of that address.

Defendant was the driver of the car in question. Officer Moe did not notice anything erratic about how she was driving and noted no Vehicle Code violations. The officer approached defendant as she got out of her car, which caused “[s]omewhat of a panicked look” to appear on her face as she walked away from the officer. Concerned it seemed defendant “did not want to be present for [his] investigation,” and not wanting to “give her a chance to go ... anywhere,” the officer asked whether she had a driver's license. Defendant said she did not have a license, prompting the officer to ask whether she had any identification at all, to which defendant responded, “there might be identification in the vehicle.” Defendant neither smelled of alcohol nor appeared to be intoxicated during the conversation. When Officer Moe attempted to place defendant in a control hold, she pulled away from him, prompting him to secure her in handcuffs while another officer looked into her car and noticed a purse on the front passenger seat. The latter officer retrieved the purse from the car and handed it to Officer Moe, who opened it in search of defendant's identification. A small amount of methamphetamine was found in a side pocket.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the methamphetamine found in the purse. During the hearing on the suppression motion, Officer Moe testified to the foregoing facts. In opposition to the motion, the prosecutor argued the officer was justified in detaining defendant to investigate whether she was driving under the influence based on the report of her driving erratically that morning, the more recent report of her driving after drinking all day, and the fact defendant appeared “nervous and panicked” when she saw him. Because defendant did not provide the officer with identification, the prosecutor argued, “[c]ase law says that the officer could enter the vehicle to retrieve a purse to search for identification,” which the officer was doing when he found the methamphetamine.

In response, defense counsel argued Officer Moe, having witnessed no violations of the law, detained defendant without any “articulable suspicion whatsoever” because the reports he was investigating proved to be unreliable when defendant parked the car without incident, was not “falling all over [ ]” herself when she got out of the car, and did not smell of alcohol. According to defense counsel, defendant's “no” in response to the officer's question regarding whether she had a driver's license and her attempt to walk away amounted to her declining to participate in a consensual interaction with the officer, which resulted in her unjustified detention. The trial court then asked defense counsel to assume the detention was lawful and address the subsequent car search. In that regard, counsel argued the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gant , supra , 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, required suppression of the methamphetamine evidence because it was not reasonable for the officer to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest, i.e., driving without a license, would be found in the car.

With respect to the Gant decision, the prosecutor responded by arguing that case was distinguishable because defendant was not under arrest, but rather “merely being detained,” and therefore, Officer Moe was “not necessarily looking for evidence of a crime,” but simply for defendant's identification, which California case law allows.

The trial court took the matter under submission and thereafter issued a written order granting the suppression motion. The trial court found the initial interaction between Officer Moe and defendant did not amount to a detention, but was instead a consensual encounter during which the officer asked defendant whether she had a driver's license. Defendant's response that she did not have a license provided the officer with probable cause to arrest her for driving without a license. However, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Thus, the trial court reasoned, under Gant , supra , 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, the search of defendant's car was justified only if she was “within reaching distance of the vehicle,” which she was not, or if it was “reasonable to believe the vehicle contain[ed] evidence of criminality related to [her] arrest” for driving without a license. “But the court in Gant, on facts similar, concluded that when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.... [¶] ... The Court reasoned that allowing law enforcement to search a vehicle for a driver's license, registration or insurance after an arrest for a traffic violation would effectively totally undercut its declaration that the search incident to arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement should be narrowly tailored.” Explaining it was “compelled to follow Gant,” the trial court granted the suppression motion. The trial court thereafter dismissed the case against defendant in furtherance of justice under section 1385. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

“Challenges to the admissibility of evidence obtained by a police search and seizure are reviewed under federal constitutional standards. [Citations.] A warrantless search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless it is conducted pursuant to one of the few narrowly drawn exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a warrant. [Citations.]” (People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 916, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 288 P.3d 1259.) “The burden is on the People to justify the warrantless search as reasonable.” (Id . at p. 919, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 288 P.3d 1259.) “In reviewing a suppression ruling, ‘we defer to the [trial] court's express and implied factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, [but] we exercise our independent judgment in determining the legality of a search on the facts so found. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 563, 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 234 P.3d 377.)

In Arturo D. , supra , 27 Cal.4th 60, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581, 38 P.3d 433, our Supreme Court confirmed the existence of a narrow exception to the warrant requirement in “the context of a valid traffic stop during which a driver fails to produce [an] automobile registration, driver's license, or identification documentation upon an officer's proper demand” (id . at p. 68, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 581, 38 P.3d 433 ), allowing a “limited warrantless search[ ] of areas within [the] vehicle where...