People v. Souza, H009961

Citation19 Cal.Rptr.2d 731,15 Cal.App.4th 1646
Decision Date20 May 1993
Docket NumberNo. H009961,H009961
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Arthur SOUZA, Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Derham, Gardner & Derham, San Francisco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen. of the State of Cal., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald A. Bass, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Stan M. Helfman, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., and Michael E. Banister, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

COTTLE, Presiding Justice.

After his motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) was denied, defendant James Arthur Souza pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf.Code, § 11378; Pen.Code §§ 12022, subd. (c), 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)), driving with a suspended or revoked driver's license (Veh.Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)), resisting arrest (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)), possession of a concealed firearm (Pen.Code, § 12025, subd. (a)), and carrying a loaded weapon in a city (Pen.Code, § 12031, subd. (a)). 1 Defendant was sentenced to four years and four months in state prison. On appeal he contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of an automobile search. For the reasons stated below, we shall affirm.

FACTS

At approximately 6:15 p.m. on July 27, 1990, San Jose Police Officers Barnes and Craig observed defendant "driving erratically," weaving into the opposing lane of traffic as he turned from one street to the next. Concerned the driver was possibly under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drugs, they stopped the older model Corvette defendant was driving; the stop occurred in front of 1347 Shasta Street, which was defendant's residence. Crystal Motley was sitting in the Corvette's passenger seat. Based upon defendant's driving, his fumbling through his wallet, and his nervous and "fidg[e]ty" behavior during the stop, as well as the odor of alcohol coming from the interior of the car, Barnes asked defendant to step outside and take a field sobriety test.

When Barnes first approached the Corvette, he had noticed "a torn open cardboard box of Budweiser beer and inside the box, which was torn open, was a bottle of Jose Cuervo Tequila that had been opened." Two-thirds of the contents of the bottle of tequila were missing and the tax seal had been broken. These items "were directly behind the driver's portion of the Corvette" in a "raised portion area" behind the driver's back headrest "[d]irectly up against the front seat." The Corvette had no back seat and the area where the Budweiser box was located was not an area "where you would [n]ormally find a passenger." However, Barnes testified that the beer and tequila were located "within reaching distance" of someone seated in either the driver or the passenger seat of the Corvette.

After testing defendant and concluding he was not under the influence of alcohol, Barnes went into the Corvette "to retrieve the open container of liquor" "[b]ecause it is a violation of the California Vehicle Code." He moved the cardboard Budweiser box while pulling out its entire contents. He did so in order to both retrieve the open container of tequila and check whether any of the beer bottles were open because he was "concerned there might be other open containers within that carton." When the carton moved, Barnes observed an open yellow manila envelope between the box and a gym bag next to the box.

Barnes noticed that the open envelope had a large amount of cash in it and a very large plastic bag which contained an "extremely large amount" of a white powdery substance which he suspected was a "controlled substance of some type." Barnes removed the envelope from the car and approached his partner, telling him "of a violation of 11378 [possession of a controlled substance for sale]...." When defendant saw the officers with the envelope, he "blurted out" that the money was his and that he did the banking for his company. At that point, both defendant and Motley started to run to the house at 1347 Shasta. The officers were able to gain physical control of defendant, but Motley ran into the house.

After "a couple minutes," Barnes and Craig followed Motley into the house through an open door. They believed she was possibly involved with the contraband found inside the Corvette. The officers searched the entire house for Motley but did not locate her or anyone else. While in a downstairs bedroom, they observed indicia of narcotics sales, including an Ohaus gram scale and material for packaging powder-type drugs. Suspecting Motley was still inside the house, the officers secured the house and then obtained a telephonic search warrant. Once they received the warrant, they searched the house and recovered further indicia of drug sales, including a small amount of suspected methamphetamine and a large amount of cash.

It was stipulated that evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing could be considered by the superior court insofar as it was relevant to the suppression motion. That evidence revealed that Officer Craig recovered a five-shot revolver from inside the gym bag, that the cash recovered from the manila enveloped totalled $4,000, that $85,000 was recovered from a toolbox under a safe, which contained an additional $1,980, that the safe also stored a military rocket launcher and three handguns, and that the white powder in the bag was 114.75 grams of methamphetamine.

Marian Sciarrino saw the traffic stop from her living room window. She testified for the defense that, as soon as the car stopped, Motley got out and walked quickly into defendant's house. Sciarrino saw a man and woman outside when the Corvette drove up and saw the man walk into the house when Motley did. While the police were still outside the house, Motley knocked on Sciarrino's back door; upset and crying, Motley asked to use the telephone. Motley did not leave Sciarrino's house that night. Sciarrino watched defendant fall on her front lawn while the officers were standing behind him.

Defendant's neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mercer, began watching the questioning of defendant after three to six police cars had arrived at the scene. They saw an officer reach into the car, take out a purse, and search through it. They did not mention seeing anyone besides defendant and the police.

Another neighbor, Lou Albert, testified that he saw Motley get out of the car when it pulled up in front of the house between his and defendant's. He saw Motley walk toward defendant's house but could not tell if she went inside. He saw defendant undergo a field sobriety test and saw the officer search defendant's car. Albert could not recall whether defendant was handcuffed at that point. After the search, Albert looked away momentarily. When he looked back, he saw defendant fall to the ground and heard him say, "What did I do? What are you hitting me for?" Albert did not see what caused defendant to fall nor did he see defendant running or being tackled.

In rebuttal, Officer Craig testified that Barnes conducted the field sobriety test while Motley stood outside the car with another woman. After administering the tests, Barnes retrieved a package from defendant's car and told Craig to "arrest Souza." At that point, defendant tried to flee. Craig could not stop him by grabbing his shirt so he hit defendant once, causing him to fall. Motley had left the scene by then, and Craig suspected she had gone into defendant's house. Based on their conversation with Motley and her friend, the officers believed Motley was in a relationship with defendant. When backup units arrived, Barnes and Craig entered the house to search for Motley. Craig estimated that they entered the house approximately five minutes after defendant was placed under arrest.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. He claims Officer Barnes could not legally seize the open, one-third full, bottle of tequila because it was "stored in an area not normally occupied by the drive[r] or passengers." He acknowledges that this argument "turn[s] upon the application of Vehicle Code section 23225," which states, in part, that it is unlawful for the driver of a motor vehicle "to keep in a motor vehicle, when the vehicle is upon any highway, any bottle, can, or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage which has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, unless the container is kept in the trunk of the vehicle, or kept in some other area of the vehicle not normally occupied by the driver or passengers, if the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk. A utility compartment or glove compartment shall be deemed to be within the area occupied by the driver and passengers."

The trial court denied the suppression motion on the ground that the statute was intended "to keep out of the hands of the driver alcoholic beverages. It is to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Alvarado, H020636.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 2001
    ...224 Cal.Rptr. 626, 715 P.2d 585; see, e.g., People v. Nguyen (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 32, 43, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 140; People v. Souza (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1652, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 731.) Section 667.61 mandates indeterminate sentences of 15 or 25 years to life for specified sex offenses that are......
  • People v. Alvarado
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 2001
    ...1179, 1221; People v. Craft (1986) 41 Cal.3d 554, 559-560; see, e.g., People v. Nguyen (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 32, 43; People v. Souza (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1652.) Section 667.61 mandates indeterminate sentences of 15 or 25 years to life for specified sex offenses that are committed und......
  • People v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 15 Junio 2020
    ...the warrantless search of defendant's car. ( People v. Waxler , supra , 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 725, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 822.)We also do not find Souza pertinent to this case. In Souza , an officer observed an opened bottle of tequila in plain view in the defendant's car. ( People v. Souza, 15 Ca......
  • People v. McGee
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 28 Julio 2020
    ...alcohol are sufficient to establish probable cause, the same can be said for open containers of marijuana. ( People v. Souza (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1653, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 731.)IThe Mere Presence Of A Lawful Amount Of Marijuana Does Not Generate Probable Cause To Search For More The Peopl......
  • 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