People v. Sutton, F059997

• Decision Date: 13 June 2011
• Docket Number: F059997
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GRANT DEAN SUTTON, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.GRANT DEAN SUTTON, Defendant and Appellant.

F059997

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Dated: June 13, 2011

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super. Ct. No. CRF29715)

OPINION

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eric L. DuTemple, Judge.

Hayes H. Gable, III, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Sean M. McCoy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant/defendant Grant Sutton pleaded guilty to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code,¹ § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted one prior narcotics-related conviction (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)). He was sentenced to five years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends the superior court should have granted his motion to suppress the methamphetamine that was found during a warrantless search of his vehicle, based on Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. ____ (Gant). Gant was decided a few days after the search in this case, and held a vehicle could be searched incident to the occupant's arrest only if the arrestee was unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search. (Gant, supra, 129 S.Ct. at pp. 1714, 1719.)

The People assert that even if the search in this case would have been illegal under Gant, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies because the deputy searched defendant's truck in accordance with the then-existing authority of New York v. Belton (1981) 453 U.S. 454 (Belton), which permitted a vehicle search incident to an arrest even if the arrestee was secured and not capable of reaching into the vehicle's interior. The People further argue the search itself was valid based on the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, as set forth in United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798 (Ross). We will affirm.

FACTS²

At 8:17 p.m. on April 15, 2009, Tuolumne County Sheriff's Deputies Serrano and Rivera were on patrol near the Chicken Ranch Bingo Casino in the Jamestown area. Serrano testified that when they are on patrol, they "just routinely" and randomly "run license plates" to determine if vehicles are registered or "[i]f they are stolen mostly."

The deputies pulled into the casino's parking lot "almost simultaneously" as a single-cab Chevrolet pickup truck. The truck did not engage in any moving violations. The deputies drove behind the truck and "randomly" checked the license plate. They determined the truck's registration was suspended, and they decided to conduct a traffic stop.

Deputy Serrano testified he activated the patrol car's signal lights and several things happened "pretty quick." The truck immediately pulled over and the patrol car parked behind it. Serrano testified there were three people sitting in the front seat: defendant was driving, a man named Seda was in the middle, and Ted Ursicker was sitting in the right passenger-side seat.

Deputy Serrano testified that all three occupants got out of the truck "as we pulled up behind them." Deputy Serrano approached defendant on the driver's side while Deputy Rivera spoke to Unsicker and Seda on the passenger side. Deputy Serrano testified that Deputy Rivera arrested Unsicker "pretty quickly." Rivera told Serrano that Unsicker had a methamphetamine pipe on him.

Deputy Serrano testified that defendant was cooperative. Serrano told defendant why he stopped the truck. Defendant said the registration was current and he had taken care of it that day. Serrano did not recall whether defendant produced any paperwork about the registration.

Defendant and Seda consented to patdown searches. Serrano conducted the patdown searches, and the record implies that he did not find any contraband on them.

Serrano testified that defendant and Seda stood by while "I searched the truck incident to that arrest" of Unsicker. Serrano testified he found contraband in the driver's side door pocket flap. According to the probation report, Serrano found a methamphetamine pipe and three hypodermic needles; one needle was loaded with a clear liquid, which consisted of 0.20 milliliters of methamphetamine.

Serrano arrested defendant for the narcotics and contraband found in the truck. Serrano did not cite defendant for the suspended registration or impound the truck. At defendant's request, Serrano released the truck to Seda, the other passenger.

Defendant was subsequently charged with count I, transportation of methamphetamine (§ 11379, subd. (a)), count II, misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, a smoking device (§ 11364); and count III, misdemeanor possession of a hypodermic needle (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4140). As to count I, it was further alleged defendant had two prior narcotics-related convictions (§ 11370.2, subd. (c)) and served two prior prison terms (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).

Defendant's motion to suppress

On February 1, 2010, defendant filed a motion to suppress the contraband seized from the truck (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). Defendant argued random registration checks of vehicles were prohibited unless there was probable cause to lawfully stop the vehicle. Defendant argued Deputy Serrano did not have probable cause to check the truck's registration. Defendant further argued that while the passenger was arrested, that arrest did not justify the search of the vehicle incident to that arrest since the arrestee was not the driver. Defendant asserted the deputies should have cited defendant for the suspended registration and released the vehicle.

On February 9, 2010, the prosecution filed opposition and argued defendant's truck was validly searched incident to the passenger's lawful arrest for possession of themethamphetamine pipe, pursuant to Belton, supra, 453 U.S. 454, Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 (Chimel), and Ross, supra, 456 U.S. 798.

The court's ruling

On February 22, 2010, and March 1, 2010, the court heard defendant's motion to suppress. Deputy Serrano was the only witness at the evidentiary hearing and testified as set forth ante.

The court denied defendant's motion to suppress and held the law was "fairly clear" that an officer could not randomly stop or detain a driver to randomly check the license and registration. However, the court held defendant was not detained prior to the actual traffic stop because the deputies checked the truck's registration while the truck was still traveling on the road.³ The court further held Serrano validly searched the interior of defendant's truck incident to the lawful arrest of the passenger for possession of the pipe.

Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to count I, transportation of methamphetamine, and admitted one prior narcotics-related conviction. He also admitted that he failed to appear in an unrelated case. The court dismissed the remaining charges. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of five years, based on the lower term of two years for count I, and a consecutive term of three years for the prior conviction.

On April 6, 2010, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the court granted defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause.

On appeal, defendant contends the court should have granted his motion to suppress the contraband found in his truck because Deputy Serrano's warrantless search of the vehicle exceeded the scope of a lawful search incident to the arrest of his passenger as set forth in Gant.⁴

DISCUSSION

I. Validity of the search of the truck incident to the passenger's arrest

Defendant contends the court should have granted his motion to suppress the contraband found in his truck based on Gant, supra, 129 S.Ct. 1710, because Deputy Serrano's search of the truck exceeded the scope of a lawful search incident to the arrest of the passenger.

"In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court must find the historical facts, select the rule of law, and apply it to the facts in order to determine whether the law as applied has been violated. [Citation.] We review the court's resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial-evidence standard. [Citation.] The ruling on whether the applicable law applies to the facts is a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to independent review. [Citation.]" (People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 891.) We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts found,the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Ibid.) Our review "is confined to the correctness or incorrectness of the trial court's ruling, not the reasons for its ruling. [Citations.]" (People v. Dimitrov (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 18, 27.)

"Under California law, issues relating to the suppression of evidence derived from police searches and seizures must be reviewed under federal constitutional standards. [Citations.]" (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 794.) Where law enforcement officers conduct a warrantless search, the People have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers' actions were justified by an exception to the warrant requirement. (People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824, 830; People v. Jordan (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 640, 645.)

We will review the exception to the warrant requirement for searches incident to lawful custodial arrests, the scope of such searches in vehicles as previously provided for in Belton, supra, 453 U.S. 454, and the United States Supreme Court's clarification about the limitation of such searches in Gant,...