People v. Vibanco
| Decision Date | 30 April 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. H029524.,H029524. |
| Citation | 151 Cal.App.4th 1,60 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arthur Moreno VIBANCO, Defendant and Respondent. |
Bill Lockyer and Edmond G. Brown, Jr., Attys. Gen., Robert R. Anderson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Engler, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Eric D. Share, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Amy Haddix and Laurence Sullivan, Deputy Attys. Gen., Office of The Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Appellant.
Mary J. Greenwood, Public Defender, David W. Epps, Supervising Attorney, Stephen B. Elrick, Senior Trial Attorney, Alternate Defender Office, Santa Clara County, San Jose, CA, for Respondent Arthur Moreno Vibanco.
Defendant Arthur Vibanco was a passenger in a Cadillac that was stopped by two police officers based on their observations of a cracked windshield and a missing front license plate. (Veh.Code, §§ 5200, 26710.) There were four people inside the car. Defendant, the right rear passenger, attempted to walk away from the car stop but was ordered by the officers first to stay inside the car and then to exit it. While one officer was focused on the driver, the second officer asked defendant for identification. Defendant gave the officer a suspected forged driver's license. He was later charged by information with six felonies and one misdemeanor. He filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5),1 contending that the officers unlawfully detained and searched him. The trial court granted the motion, finding that defendant was unlawfully detained "when he attempted to walk away from a stopped car in which he was a mere passenger." The case was dismissed and the People appeal.
In this case we are asked to determine whether officers may, pursuant to a lawful traffic stop, reasonably order a passenger to stay in or step out of the car for officer safety reasons, and thereafter ask the passenger for identification. We conclude that the officers' detention of defendant and request for identification in this case was lawful. Therefore, we will reverse the dismissal order and remand the matter with directions to deny the motion to suppress evidence.
Defendant was charged by information with receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 1), check forgery (§ 470, subd. (d); count 2), possessing a forged unfinished check (§ 475, subd. (b); count 3), possessing a forged driver's license (§ 470b; count 4), unlawful acquiring of access cards (§ 484e; count 5), false personation (§ 529; count 6), and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 7). The information further alleged that defendant was out of custody on bail at the time of the current offenses (§ 12022.1), and that he had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12).2 Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by police officers on June 6, 2005, the day of the car stop. The People opposed the motion, contending in part that the officers reasonably asked defendant to stay at the stopped vehicle in the interest of the officers' safety. The testimony at the September 9, 2005 hearing on the motion to suppress was as follows.
San Jose Police Officers Brian Shab and Topui Fonua were on routine patrol in uniform, but in an unmarked patrol car, on June 6, 2005. Around 8:15 p.m., which was dusk, and while driving on White Road near McKee, which was in a high crime area known for drug-related activity, they saw a Cadillac with a cracked windshield and without a front license plate. There were four people inside the car. The officers initiated a traffic stop by using the patrol car's flashing lights, and Anthony Renteria, the driver of the Cadillac, pulled over.
Officer Shab approached the driver's side of the Cadillac as Officer Fonua was getting out of the patrol car. Officer Shab testified that he "saw the right rear passenger door open, and [defendant] begin to exit the vehicle." Officer Shab Moreno was the left rear passenger. "Initially, [Officer Shab] was fearing that she could possibly be arming herself or destroying evidence," so the officer "told her to stop what she was doing and show ... her hands." Moreno did as she was ordered. "In order to stabilize the situation" because there were "too many things going on at one time" and he was afraid the officers "were starting to lose control of the car stop," Officer Shab then decided to have everybody exit the Cadillac. He directed all of the occupants to get out of the Cadillac and to sit on the curb between the Cadillac and the patrol car.
Officer Fonua testified that, as he was getting out of the patrol car he saw defendant exiting the right rear of the Cadillac. Officer Fonua "told him to get back in." As defendant "just stood there," Officer Shab "was instructing the female to ... stop what she was doing." Officer Shab then decided to have all of the Cadillac occupants exit the car and sit on the curb.
While Officer Shab "was still getting the driver out of the vehicle," Officer Fonua asked defendant for identification. Defendant gave Officer Fonua a driver's license in the name of Juan Paulo La Cuarto Gonzales. Officer Fonua did not believe that the license belonged to defendant because, in Officer Fonua's opinion, the picture on the license was not defendant. Officer Fonua asked defendant his name, and the only name defendant could give was Gonzales. Officer Fonua asked defendant his birth date, but defendant did not know what it was. Officer Fonua gave the license to Officer Shab, told him that defendant was falsely impersonating the person on the license, and attempted to place defendant in handcuffs. Defendant stood up and ran across the street. The officers caught defendant, took him to the ground, and placed him in handcuffs. While doing so, Officer Shab ordered the other three people not to move. After defendant was brought back to the curb, the officers requested identification from the other three people.
Officer Shab checked their identifications with communications. The officers learned that Moreno had several outstanding felony arrest warrants and that defendant had a $250,000 felony arrest warrant for fraud. Defendant was placed under arrest. In a search incident to that arrest, an American Express card with the name scratched off was found in defendant's pants pocket. Pedro Vibanco, who had been sitting in the front passenger seat, was on active parole. He was placed under arrest because he appeared to be under the influence of a stimulant. Officer Shab pat-searched him, but no narcotics were found on his person. Officer Shab also pat-searched Renteria for weapons but found none.
The officers decided to search the Cadillac for evidence of narcotics and fraud. Nothing was found inside the passenger compartment of the car. However, in the trunk the officers found a black backpack containing a blue folder. Inside the folder were several washed checks, several blank checks, several pieces of suspected stolen mail, credit cards, and a letter addressed to defendant.
At the conclusion of the testimony at the suppression hearing, the prosecutor argued to the court that, when officers stop a vehicle for an infraction, the officers have the power to detain all occupants of the car if there is a reason for the officers to suspect that the occupants may be a threat to the officers. The prosecutor further argued that in cases dealing with detentions during the service of arrest and search warrants, the courts have used a balancing test.
Defendant argued that passengers cannot be detained without reasonable and articulable facts that would lead officers to believe that the passengers have committed a crime. Defendant argued that he did nothing other than exit the Cadillac before he was ordered back, and therefore his detention was unlawful.
In granting defendant's motion to suppress on September 9, 2005, the court relied on People v. Gonzalez (1992) 7 Cal. App.4th 381, 8 Cal.Rptr.2d 640 (Gonzalez), and stated:
On October 21, 2005, the prosecutor informed the court that, as a result of the ruling on defendant's motion to suppress, the People were unable to proceed with the case against defendant. The court dismissed the charges against defendant pursuant to section 1385. The People filed a timely notice of appeal. (§ 1238, subd. (a)(7).)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Conn. v. Christopher Jenkins.
...to asking for defendant's consent was de minimus and did not unreasonably extend the traffic stop”); People v. Vibanco, 151 Cal.App.4th 1, 14, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 (2007) (“[i]nvestigative activities beyond the original purpose of a traffic stop ... are permissible as long as they do not prolon......
-
State v. Dissent
...to asking for defendant's consent was de minimus and did not unreasonably extend the traffic stop''); People v. Vibanco, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1, 14, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2007) (''[i]nvestigative activities beyond the original purpose of a traffic stop... are permissible as long as they do not p......
-
People v. Leath
...S.Ct. 1868; see also California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 625–626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690.)” (People v. Vibanco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1, 8, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 1.) In People v. Jenkins (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 368, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 197 ( Jenkins ), the court considered the issue ra......
-
Parker v. Deguito
...to request or demand identification consistent with general Fourth Amendment principles.” Id. at *13 (citing People v. Vibanco, 151 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14 (2007); People v. Spicer, 157 Cal.App.3d 213, 221 (1984)). Further, “[e]ven without a statute specifically authorizing such a request or d......
-
Search and seizure
...(even traffic infractions), see People v. Branner (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 136 and discussion at §7:11.3, supra. People v. Vibanco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1, held that although a vehicle passenger is seized in a traffic stop, absent a showing of force he is free to ignore the police presence. ......
-
Table of cases
...100 Cal.App.4th 1146, §§1:21.1.1(a), 1:21.6.1, 10:31.8 People v. Verni (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 124, §14:23 People v. Vibanco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1, §7:61 People v. Vickers , 8 Cal.3d 451, 458 (1972), §3:56.4 People v. Victor (1965) 62 Cal.2d 280, 303, §1:13 People v. Vigil (2011) 192 Cal.......
-
Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
...236 n.6; Vera, 28 Cal. App.5th at 1085; People v. Corrales (2d Dist.2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 696, 699; People v. Vibanco (6th Dist.2007) 151 Cal. App.4th 1, 8. A routine traffic stop is treated similarly to an investigative detention and is considered a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth......
-
Table of Cases null
...4-C, §4.3.3(2) People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal. 4th 263, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803, 236 P.3d 1035 (2010)—Ch. 6, §2.2.2(3) People v. Vibanco, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (6th Dist. 2007)—Ch. 5-A, §3.2.2(2) People v. Villa, 55 Cal. App. 5th 1042, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 46 (4th Dist. 2020)—Ch. 1,......