P. v. Puga

Filed 5/18/06  P. v. Puga CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

                      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip  S. Gutierrez, Judge.  Affirmed as modified.

                      Ronnie Duberstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                      Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Noah  P. Hill, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

INTRODUCTION

                      A police officer stopped defendant and appellant Ruby Alvina Puga after she committed a traffic violation in her car.  About 15 minutes after she had been stopped, the officer asked for and received consent to search the car.  The officer found methamphetamine in Puga's car.  Puga made a motion to suppress the evidence on the grounds, among others, that the officer lacked consent to search the car and the detention was prolonged.  The trial court denied the motion.  On appeal, Puga contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion.  She also contends that the trial court imposed an unconstitutionally overbroad and vague probation condition.  We hold that the trial court did not err in denying the suppression motion, but that the judgment must be modified because the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I.                  The initial motion to suppress.

                      Puga was arrested on May 27, 2004, after police stopped her car for a traffic violation and found drugs in it.  Thereafter, on August 10, Puga filed a motion to suppress the evidence under Penal Code^[1] section 1538.5.  Puga argued that she did not consent to the search, and, â€