People v. McDonald
Decision Date | 08 March 2006 |
Docket Number | No. A108690.,A108690. |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. David McDONALD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
This case presents the question whether it is a crime under California state law to urinate in public.
David McDonald challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.1 The evidence was seized after McDonald was detained for urinating in a public place. McDonald claims the detention and search incident thereto were unlawful because the Penal Code does not criminalize his act. As the officer who detained McDonald could lawfully do so only on the basis of a reasonable articulable suspicion McDonald was engaged in, or about to engage in, criminal activity, we are compelled to decide what appears to be a question of first impression—whether the California Legislature has criminalized public urination. We answer the question in the affirmative and shall therefore uphold the denial of McDonald's motion to suppress.
Oakland Police Officer Francisco Rojas observed McDonald urinating in the parking lot of a restaurant in the 3000 block of San Pablo Avenue in Berkeley on Sunday, January 26, 2003, at 11:23 a.m. At the time, the restaurant was closed, and the parking lot was empty, save for a vehicle that appeared to belong to defendant's acquaintance. Officer Rojas, who was driving on the far side of San Pablo Avenue, could tell that McDonald was urinating, and Rojas saw McDonald zipping up his pants as the officer approached. Officer Rojas intended to cite McDonald for urinating in the parking lot, and asked him for identification. McDonald said he did not have an I.D. but provided his name, date of birth, and address. The officer placed McDonald under arrest while he verified this information. When he searched McDonald incident to the arrest, Officer Rojas found six "off-white rocks" in McDonald's pocket. After testing, one of the rocks was found to contain cocaine base, and the parties stipulated to this fact.
On March 3, 2004, McDonald filed a motion to suppress pursuant to section 1538.5, contending that he had been unlawfully detained because Officer Rojas lacked reasonable suspicion to believe McDonald was violating the law. The trial court heard the motion at a joint preliminary and suppression hearing on March 25, 2004. Officer Rojas stated that when he saw McDonald urinating in the parking lot, he intended to cite the defendant. After reviewing the police report of the incident, Rojas noted that it reflected his citation of McDonald for "littering" in violation of section 374.4, subdivision (b). The officer admitted that might not have been the correct section of the Penal Code and did not recall "why [he] wrote that section" in his report.2 When asked by defense counsel whether he was aware of a Penal Code section prohibiting public urination, Officer Rojas stated he did not
The prosecutor argued that Officer Rojas had reasonable suspicion to detain and cite McDonald for littering in violation of sections 374 and 374.4, subdivisions (a) and (c). Accordingly, the prosecutor contended, Officer Rojas had the right to arrest McDonald and search him incident to the arrest because McDonald did not provide adequate identification. Defense counsel maintained that urine is not included in the definition of either "litter" or "waste matter," and consequently McDonald's act of public urination was not prohibited by section 374.4.
The court agreed with the prosecution. In his ruling, the judge defined the issue as "whether or not there is some law that will allow the arrest for a citation for urinating in public." The court concluded that, reading the definitions of "littering" and "waste matter" in sections 374 and 374.4 together,
On April 7, 2004, the Alameda County District Attorney filed an information charging McDonald with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). On July 26, 2004, defense counsel filed a motion pursuant to section 995 to set aside the information on the ground that the evidence supporting the charge had been obtained in violation of McDonald's Fourth Amendment rights. The prosecution opposed the motion, reasserting its claim that McDonald was lawfully detained for littering under sections 374 and 374.4. The prosecution also contended that the officer properly detained McDonald for committing a public nuisance in violation of sections 370 and 372. In addition, the prosecution asserted, McDonald violated section 375, subdivision (a), which, generally speaking, prohibits the release of injurious or nauseous substances in places of public assembly. The prosecution maintained that Officer Rojas's objective belief that McDonald had violated the law was sufficient to justify detaining him even if the officer was unsure of the precise statute that had been violated.
The court denied McDonald's section 995 motion. After reviewing the statutory provisions upon which the People relied, the court acknowledged some difficulty in discerning precisely which provision of the Penal Code, if any, prohibited public urination. In the end, the court focused on the definitions of littering in sections 374, subdivision (a), and 374.4, subdivision (c), as well as the definition of "waste matter" in section 374, subdivision (b), explaining that "those are the code sections I'm looking at for the definition of what it is, that waste matter includes any nauseous or offensive matter of any kind." The court alluded to conditions at a local underpass, stating that "if urine isn't nauseating and offensive in those particular places, I don't know what would be."
The court concluded:
On October 6, 2004, the parties agreed to submit the case to the court based upon the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, and the court found McDonald guilty of the charged offense. On November 18, 2004, the court placed McDonald on formal probation for three years, a disposition it later modified to reflect McDonald's referral to a drug treatment program. McDonald filed a timely notice of appeal on December 3, 2004.
It is undisputed that Office Rojas detained McDonald because he saw him urinating in public. McDonald argues that his act cannot have provided Officer Rojas with reasonable articulable suspicion he was engaged in criminal activity because, under these circumstances, public urination is simply not a crime under California law. The parties agree, as do we, that the propriety of the search hinges upon whether public urination is a crime under the law of this state.
The People contend that California statutes prohibiting dumping, littering, or the release of injurious or nauseous substances in places of public assembly can be construed, either together or separately, to prohibit public urination. (Se...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tacardon
...subds. (i), (m) ; People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891, 896–897, 150 Cal.Rptr. 910, 587 P.2d 706 ; People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 528–529, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 422.) Based on the preliminary hearing record, the superior court granted the motion and dismissed the charges. The ......
-
Martinez v. Welk Grp., Inc.
...nuisance is a nontrespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” 15People v. McDonald, 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 534, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 (2006), citing ( Rest.2d Torts, § 821D, p. 100). In San Diego Gas & Electric v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 893, 938, 55 C......
-
People v. Evans
...theory of law applicable to the case, even if for reasons different than those given by the trial court. ( People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 529, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 422.)2. The trial court erred by denying the suppression motion. The initial stop of Evans's vehicle 3 and the comman......
-
People v. Magee
...matter before the superior court under the standards governing a section 995 motion. [Citations.]” ( People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 528–529, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 422.) “In a proceeding under section 995, the superior court's role is similar to that of an appellate court reviewing ......
-
Chapter 2 - §13. Judicial notice
...181 Cal.App.4th 644, 657 (universally known that recovery from addiction is lifelong process); People v. McDonald (1st Dist.2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 538 (universally known that unpleasant consequences would follow from permitting people to urinate in public at will); People v. Coulon (3d ......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. McDaniel, 38 Cal. App. 5th 986, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (5th Dist. 2019)—Ch. 3-B, §6.2.2; Ch. 6, §2.2.2(2) (a) People v. McDonald, 137 Cal. App. 4th 521, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 422 (1st Dist. 2006)—Ch. 2, §13.1.1(4) People v. McDonald, 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709, 46 A.L.R.4......
-
Wifi in Utah: Legal and Social Issues
...that federal law did not preempt a nuisance claim against the noises and vibrations caused by a nearby railroad); People v. McDonald, 137 Cal. App. 4th 521, 539 (Ca. Ct. App. 2006) (urinating others can see); Esposito v. New Britain Baseball Club, Inc., 895 A.2d 291 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2005) ......