P. v. Arteaga

Filed 5/26/06  P. v. Arteaga CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  John Martin, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Andrew E. Rubin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            Defendant pleaded guilty to possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) as alleged in two separate cases (case Nos. FSB046741 and FSB046795); in return, defendant was promised three years of probation.  In accordance with the plea agreement, defendant was granted three years of formal probation on each case subject to various terms and conditions, including serving 270 days in county jail and submitting to and cooperating in field interrogations by any peace officer at any time of the day or night.  Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the probation condition requiring her to submit to and cooperate in field interrogations is vague, is overly broad, and infringes upon her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

            On March 26, 2004, an officer was dispatched to a location in reference to a verbal dispute between a girlfriend and boyfriend.  Once at the scene, the officer found defendant fighting with her mother.  The officer made contact with defendant and noticed that she was unable to sit still and was evasive in her answers to the officer's questions.  The officer also noted that defendant was clenching a purse.  The officer, concerned that the purse might contain a weapon, asked defendant to hand him the purse.  When she refused, the officer attempted to take defendant into custody for assaulting her mother.  Defendant, however, would not let go of the purse; she began to struggle with the officer while yelling and screaming.  The officer eventually calmed defendant and placed her in the back of the patrol car.  When the officer asked defendant if she had anything illegal in her purse, defendant replied she had drugs.  The officer found 52 grams of methamphetamine in her purse.  After waiving her constitutional rights, defendant admitted that she was planning on selling the methamphetamine.

            On September 30, 2004, officers were dispatched to a high narcotics activity location.  Once there, officers saw defendant and a male -- later identified as defendant's boyfriend -- walking down a street, where they met a female.  After a brief conversation, all three of them began walking very rapidly and watching vehicles as they passed.  The officers then contacted defendant and the other two.  When the officers asked them if they had anything illegal, defendant's boyfriend removed a methamphetamine pipe that was heavily coated with methamphetamine from his pocket.  The officers then conducted a search of all three subjects and found 12.26 grams of methamphetamine in defendant's purse.  Defendant and her boyfriend were arrested.  Defendant denied that the methamphetamine was hers.

II

DISCUSSION

            Defendant contends the probation condition requiring her to â€