P. v. Davis

Filed 2/28/07 P. v. Davis CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, and Kristen K. Chenelia, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Introduction

Defendant Michael Timothy Davis appeals from a judgment following his guilty plea to second degree commercial burglary and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered by the police while conducting an inventory search of his truck.

The Attorney General concedes the trial court should have granted defendants motion. We agree. The police did not have authority to impound defendants truck, which was parked on private property. Therefore, the warrantless search conducted incident to impounding the truck was unreasonable, and the evidence should have been suppressed. We reverse the judgment based on defendants guilty plea, and remand the matter with directions to the trial court to grant the motion to suppress. Defendant may then, if he chooses, move to withdraw his guilty plea.

Statement of Facts[1]

Defendant and Kelly Higgins were detained on February 6, 2005, for suspicion of shoplifting at a Target store in Garden Grove. A wants and warrants check run on defendant revealed two outstanding warrants for violations of Vehicle Code sections 12500, subdivision (a) (driving without a license); 16028, subdivision (a) (failure to show proof of insurance); 4462.5 (failure to show vehicle registration); and 40508, subdivision (a) (failure to appear). After being arrested on the outstanding warrants, defendant was searched and a set of car keys was found in his possession. Using those keys to unlock defendants truck, Garden Grove Police Officer John Bankson conducted a warrantless inventory search and located Ziploc bags, a digital gram scale, 11.6 grams of methamphetamine, a methamphetamine pipe, and 6.7 grams of marijuana. At the time, the truck was legally parked on the Target stores property; no one had requested that the truck be removed from the property. The parties agreed the search of defendants truck was not incident to an arrest and the items in defendants truck were seized without a warrant.

Defendant was charged with second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code,  459, 460, subd. (b)), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code,  11378), and possession of marijuana (id.,  11357, subd. (b)). After his motion to suppress was denied, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and possession of a controlled substance for sale. The possession of marijuana charge was dismissed as part of a plea agreement. Defendant was sentenced to three years formal probation on the condition he serve 210 days in jail. He was ordered to pay a $10 fine, a $20 court security fee (Pen. Code,  1465.8), a $50 controlled substance lab fee (Health & Saf. Code,  11372.5), a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code,  1202.4), and to make restitution to the victim. Defendant was also ordered to provide DNA samples (Pen. Code,  296), and to register as a narcotics offender (Health & Saf. Code,  11590). Defendant timely appealed.

Discussion

In reviewing the trial courts ruling on the suppression motion, we uphold any factual finding, express or implied, that is supported by substantial evidence, but we independently assess, as a matter of law, whether the challenged search or seizure conforms to constitutional standards of reasonableness. [Citation.] (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 327.)

Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search of his truck. The Attorney General concedes the motion should have been granted. Having reviewed the record in this case and the relevant authorities, we agree.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable government intrusions into their legitimate expectations of privacy. A warrantless search is presumed to be illegal. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 437 U.S. 385, 390.) The prosecution always has the burden of justifying a search by proving it was within a recognized exception to the constitutional warrant requirement. (In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 76, overruled on other grounds in In re Jaime P. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 128.)

The police may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle when they have properly impounded it in order to secure the vehicle and its contents, if they follow standardized procedures. (South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 371, 373; People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756, 761.) An inventory search may not be used to discover evidence of a crime, however. (Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1, 4.)

Defendants truck was parked on private property; therefore, it could not be impounded by the police, given the facts of this case. Vehicle Code sections 22653 and 22655.5 authorize the impoundment of a vehicle parked on private property: (1) if the vehicle is stolen; (2) if the vehicle has been involved in, and left at the scene of, a traffic accident; (3) at the request of the private property owner when the person driving or in control of the vehicle is arrested; or (4) when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle was used to commit a crime, or is itself evidence. The facts of this case do not justify impoundment based on any of those statutory criteria.[2]

Because the officers acted beyond their authority in impounding defendants truck, the warrantless search of the truck was unreasonable. The trial court should have granted defendants motion to suppress evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment of conviction, and remand the matter to allow the trial court to do so.

Disposition

The judgment of conviction is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter an order granting defendants motion to suppress. The trial court is further directed to permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea within 30 days after issuance of the remittitur. If defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty plea within that time, the judgment of conviction shall be reinstated.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

OLEARY, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.

[1] Because defendant pleaded guilty, the facts are drawn from the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence.

[2] In opposing the motion to suppress, the prosecution relied on Vehicle Code section 22651, subdivision (h). That statute applies only to impoundment of vehicles located on public property, and is not applicable here.