P. v. Inman

Filed 2/20/07  P. v. Inman CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County.  Stephen Gildner, Judge.

            Peggy A. Headley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and  Respondent.

-ooOoo-

            Police officers entered the apartment of defendant Reno Ray Inman and secured the premises during a two-hour wait for a search warrant.  After defendant's motion to suppress evidence was denied, he entered a guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11378).  On appeal, he challenges the trial court's denial of the suppression motion, contending (1) the officers entered his apartment without complying with knock-notice requirements; (2) the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because it was based on information collected after (a) the officers' illegal warrantless entry and (b) the officers' illegal arrest of defendant.  Lastly, defendant contends that because the statement of probable cause omitted critical information, the trial court erred by denying his motion to traverse the search warrant.  After reviewing the sealed portion of the statement of probable cause, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

            On June 15, 2005, the district attorney charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf. Code, §  11378; count 1) and being in control of a building for the purpose of manufacturing, storing, or distributing methamphetamine for purposes of sale and distribution (Health & Saf. Code, §  11366.5, subd. (a); count 2). 

            Defendant filed a motion for an in camera hearing regarding a sealed affidavit and a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, §  1538.5), or alternatively to quash and/or traverse the search warrant.  On August 2, 2005, the trial court considered the sealed affidavit in camera.  The court granted in part defendant's motion to unseal the affidavit and the unsealed portion was provided to the parties.  The remainder remained sealed and the court denied the motion to traverse the search warrant.  After hearing evidence on the motion to suppress, the court denied the motion. 

            Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to count 1 in exchange for a sentence of no more than 16 months in prison and dismissal of count 2.  The court sentenced defendant to 16 months in prison. 

FACTS^[1]

            Detective Cavazos was assisting Detective Gonzales in a narcotics investigation involving defendant, Zamora Gomez and Brian Harless.  During surveillance on May 9, 2005, Gomez was seen at defendant's residence, apartment 107.^[2]  After Gomez left, he had contact with Harless, who was subsequently arrested. 

            Gonzales informed Cavazos and the other team officers that two possible coconspirators, defendant and Gomez, were still outstanding.  Defendant was inside apartment 107 and Gomez was at another address.  Gonzales believed that because of the pursuit preceding Harless's arrest, there was a possibility that Harless or a witness to his arrest could have contacted defendant or Gomez.  Gonzales feared that evidence could be moved or destroyed. 

            For these reasons, Gonzales directed Cavazos to go to apartment 107 to secure or â€