P. v. Cors
Filed 4/18/07 P. v. Cors CA3
Exhibit not available electronically
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHANIE RENEE CORS, Defendant and Appellant. | C052524 (Super. Ct. No. 6252058) |
On April 7, 2005, defendant received a ticket because her trucks registration had expired. On April 30, 2005, another officer stopped her for the same violation and detained her. Defendant refused the officer permission to search the truck. The officer impounded the truck and conducted an inventory search, which disclosed methamphetamine.
Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11378), transportation of methamphetamine with a not-for-personal-use allegation (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 1210, subd. (a)), and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11377, subd. (a)).
Defendant moved to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, 1538.5.) The trial court denied the motion. Defendant pled no contest to transportation of methamphetamine and was sentenced to four years of probation with jail time.
Defendant mainly contends that the search of her truck was unlawful because (1) the ticket she received on April 7, 2005, was a fix-it ticket within the meaning of Vehicle Code section 40610 (section 40610); (2) this ticket authorized her to continue driving her truck with its expired registration until June 6, 2005; (3) therefore, once she had produced the ticket, her continued detention lacked legal basis and she was entitled to refuse permission to search the truck. As will appear, we need not decide whether fix-it tickets issued under section 40610 have this legal effect, because defendant did not receive such a ticket; rather, she received a notice to appear in court on June 6, 2005, following her arrest on April 7, 2005, for the expired registration. (Veh. Code, 40522 (section 40522).) Finding defendants challenge to the search to lack merit, we shall affirm.
FACTS
The following evidence was given at the hearing on defendants motion to suppress:
Patrolling on April 30, 2005, Placer County Deputy Sheriff Batine Ramirez saw a Toyota truck with 2004 registration tabs on the license plate. When she ran the license number, she found that the registration had expired in 2002. She stopped the truck, driven by defendant.
Defendant handed Ramirez a ticket she had received on April 7, 2005, for the expired registration, which allegedly showed a compliance date of June 6, 2005.[1] According to defendant, she understood it to be a fix-it ticket.
Ramirez called her supervisor, Sergeant Wayne Woo, to determine if she could impound the truck. Woo told her she could because defendants ticket was not a permission to drive the vehicle . . . just a notification for [defendant] to pay her registration.
Before deciding to impound the truck, Ramirez asked defendants permission to search it. Defendant refused.
After placing defendant in the back of the squad car, Ramirez requested a tow truck. She then conducted an inventory search consistent with departmental policies and procedures. The search disclosed a locked container in the back of the truck, to which defendant gave Ramirez the key. Inside the container, Ramirez found a white powdery substance and plastic baggies; she believed the substance was methamphetamine and the packaging indicated the intent to sell. Ramirez arrested defendant.
According to defendant, she had attempted to register the truck in 2004, paying the registration fee and receiving the 2004 tags. In the course of moving, however, she lost her paperwork. When she finally received the title from Toyota and sent it in, DMV rejected it because it showed her former address and returned it to her, telling her to correct the address. This was why the system showed the registration had expired in 2002, even though she had believed it was valid through 2004. She admitted that it had expired by April 30, 2005.
The trial court denied defendants motion on the following ground (italics added):
I think there was some misunderstanding on the effect of what is characterized as a fix-it ticket. Yes. This ticket is issued which can affect ultimately its dismissal if the problem is cured. So in that sense it is a fix-it ticket, but it does not authorize a person to continue to drive in noncompliance with the Vehicle Code.
In this situation Deputy Ramirez clearly had probable cause to initially stop the vehicle. Her computer check indicated the [truck] still was in an expired status. In fact, it was in an expired status. It is discretionary on the part of the officer to physically seize the vehicle. And it appears that Deputy Ramirez was not singling the defendant out but was exercising standard departmental policy in seizing the vehicle because of the length of time it had expired, and she was exercising routine department policy in inventorying the vehicle prior to release to the towing company. Under these circumstances the seizure of the evidence was proper, so the motion on that basis is denied.
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant concedes that the initial traffic stop was lawful. She contends, however, that (1) the detention was unreasonably prolonged after she produced the so-called fix-it ticket, and (2) Deputy Ramirez had no reasonable grounds to impound the truck and conduct an inventory search after defendant had produced the ticket because it permitted her to drive the truck free of arrest for the registration violation up to the compliance deadline. We disagree. Because defendant did not receive a fix-it ticket, as we now show, we need not decide whether such a ticket could have that legal effect. Defendant has not made any argument that a notice to appear, which she actually received, could do so. Therefore her claim of error fails.
The standard of appellate review of a trial courts ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial courts factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. [Citations.] (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)
Although the parties had defendants ticket before them when arguing the suppression motion, it was not in the record on appeal. We called up the trial exhibits, including Exhibit 1, a copy of the ticket, of which we have attached a photocopy to this opinion as Exhibit A.[2] This exhibit reveals that defendants ticket was not a fix-it ticket but a notice to appear.
Section 40610, which governs notices to correct violations (i.e., fix-it tickets), provides (italics added):
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), if, after an arrest, accident investigation, or other law enforcement action, it appears that a violation has occurred involving a registration, license, all-terrain vehicle safety certificate, or mechanical requirement of this code, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist and the investigating officer decides to take enforcement action, the officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violators promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency.
(2) If any person is arrested for a violation of Section 4454, and none of the disqualifying conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the arresting officer shall prepare, in triplicate, and the violator shall sign, a written notice containing the violators promise to correct the alleged violation and to deliver proof of correction of the violation to the issuing agency. In lieu of issuing a notice to correct violation pursuant to this section, the officer may issue a notice to appear, as specified in Section 40522.
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a), a notice to correct violation shall be issued as provided in this section or a notice to appear shall be issued as provided in Section 40522, unless the officer finds any of the following:
(1) Evidence of fraud or persistent neglect.
(2) The violation presents an immediate safety hazard.
(3) The violator does not agree to, or cannot, promptly correct the violation.
(c) If any of the conditions set forth in subdivision (b) exist, the procedures specified in this section or Section 40522 are inapplicable, and the officer may take other appropriate enforcement action.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a), the notice to correct violation shall be on a form approved by the Judicial Council and, in addition to the owners or operators address and identifying information, shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction and proof of correction of the particular defect, not to exceed 30 days, or 90 days for the all-terrain vehicle safety certificate.
Exhibit 1 shows on its face that it is not a fix-it ticket but a notice to appear. Not only is it headed, Notice to Appear, but it does not prescribe a time period for defendant to correct the violation, and it gives a date for defendants appearance which is more than 30 days after the date of the tickets issuance, both of which would be improper for a fix-it ticket. (Cf. 40610, subd. (d).) Absent contrary evidence, we must presume that the officer issued the correct ticket under the circumstances. (Evid. Code, 664.) Since this ticket bears all the indicia of a notice to appear and none of the indicia of a fix-it ticket, we conclude that the officer intended to and did issue defendant a notice to appear.
Vehicle Code section 40522, under which notices to appear are issued, requires that (1) the defendant was arrested for the observed violation, and (2) one of the disqualifying conditions stated in section 40610, subdivision (b), prevented the issuance of a notice to correct violation. As indicated above, these disqualifying conditions include [e]vidence of fraud or persistent neglect. (Ibid.)
Applying Evidence Code section 664, we must presume that, after arresting defendant, the officer found one of the disqualifying conditions which prevented the issuance of a fix-it ticket. ( 40610, subd. (b).) To drive in April 2005 with registration that had expired in 2002 according to official records, and no later than 2004 even according to defendants claimed belief, is at the least evidence . . . of persistent neglect. ( 40610, subd. (b)(1).) Therefore, since the record does not indicate any other disqualifying condition[] on April 7, 2005, we must presume the officer found that one to exist. (Evid. Code, 664.)
Because defendants ticket was not a fix-it ticket, we have no occasion to determine whether, as she argues, such a ticket allows its recipient to continue driving a vehicle free of arrest for the alleged violation until the compliance deadline. Defendant has not cited authority which holds that a driver issued a notice to appear, as she was, may continue driving without having corrected the alleged violation, and we know of none. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that defendants ticket did not entitle her to continue to drive with expired registration.
Thus, the only question we need to answer is whether Deputy Ramirez acted reasonably under the circumstances. (People v. Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 362.) The answer is clearly yes.
First, defendants detention was not unreasonably prolonged. After defendant produced her ticket, Deputy Ramirez prolonged the encounter reasonably so as to contact her supervisor and find out what other enforcement action was appropriate. As soon as her supervisor gave her the green light to impound defendants truck, Deputy Ramirez acted promptly to do so.
Second, Deputy Ramirez had reasonable grounds to impound the truck on her supervisors advice, which was legally correct for the reasons we have explained, and defendant had no legal basis to refuse permission to search the truck at that point. Thereafter, Deputy Ramirez acted according to routine department policy in impounding the truck and conducting an inventory search.
For all the above reasons, defendants challenge to the search and seizure fails.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMS , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND, P.J.
MORRISON , J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by San Diego County Property line attorney.
[1] When an officer issues a notice to correct a violation (a fix-it ticket) for expired registration, the ticket shall contain an estimate of the reasonable time required for correction, not to exceed 30 days. ( 40610, subd. (d).) June 6, 2005, is more than 30 days beyond April 7, 2005. As we explain below, this is one of the reasons why we conclude that defendant did not receive a fix-it ticket.
[2] We note that the copy delivered to us was located by the superior court clerk in the file of a deputy district attorney. However, no one contends that this copy is inauthentic.
