P. v. Pettigrew
Filed 7/13/06 P. v. Pettigrew CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY PETTIGREW, Defendant and Appellant. | H028291 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC312791) |
After his motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the case were denied, defendant Jeffrey Pettigrew pleaded no contest to a charge of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a).)[1] Pursuant to a plea agreement, the court reduced the conviction to a misdemeanor and sentenced defendant to one year court probation and a $100 fine, on conditions, among others, of search and seizure and two days in county jail reduced by one day of credit for time served.
On appeal from his no contest plea, defendant seeks further review of his suppression motion. (§ 1538.5, subd. (m).) He also challenges the denial of his motion to dismiss based on alleged police destruction of evidence. The Attorney General asserts that this latter contention is not reviewable after a no contest plea. For the reasons stated below, we will affirm the judgment, after concluding that defendant's destruction claim is not reviewable and that his detention for a traffic violation was reasonable.
The suppression hearing
The San Jose police were concerned about violence erupting between rival motorcycle clubs on Easter Sunday, April 20, 2003. Scheduled for that day was an annual event, a priest's blessing of motorcycles. So the police were briefed to keep things safe by having â€
