P. v. Melnyk
Filed 6/23/06 P. v. Melnyk CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD ROBERT MELNYK, Defendant and Appellant. | G035517 (Super. Ct. No. 03HF1214) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, William Lee Evans, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Richard Schwartzberg, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Lilia E. Garcia and Janelle Marie Boustany, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Richard Robert Melnyk challenges his conviction for burglary, receiving stolen property, and vehicle theft. He contends the court wrongly denied his motion to suppress a stolen credit card discovered during a Terry pat-down search. He asserts the officer unreasonably removed everything from his pocket -- including the credit card -- rather than removing only another object that felt like a weapon.
We agree with defendant, and reject the Attorney General's two counterarguments. First, defendant's consent to the officer removing the other object --an Allen wrench set -- did not constitute consent to her removing everything from his pocket, including the credit card. Second, the â€
