People v. Sherman CA3

Filed 11/25/24 P. v. Sherman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099587

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-184853)

v.

TROY THEOSIUS SHERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Troy Theosius Sherman pled no contest to two drug offenses and admitted a prior strike conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his car. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In the early morning hours of April 5, 2022, Roseville police officers pulled defendant over for driving above the speed limit and for driving with an improperly illuminated license plate that was partially obstructed by weatherstripping. After the

1

traffic stop, officers conducted a search of defendant, his sole passenger, and his car, uncovering a gun, a loaded magazine, several kinds of controlled substances, and a scale. Defendant was charged with several drug and weapons related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, challenging the initial traffic stop. Roseville Police Officer Chase Ivey testified that while driving his patrol car he observed defendant driving with a “license plate lens [that] did not properly illuminate the license plate” and that the license plate was “also partially obstructed.” Officer Ivey clarified he could not read the numbers on defendant’s license plate because a piece of rubber obscured the license plate numbers. Officer Ivey also believed defendant was driving between 60 and 70 miles per hour in a 40-mile-per-hour zone, which he considered unsafe given the time of day and moderate traffic levels. Officer Ivey visually estimated defendant’s speed based on his familiarity with that specific road from his nightly patrol route but did not remember whether he looked at his speedometer. Officer Ivey had to accelerate to catch up to defendant to perform the traffic stop. Officer Ivey did not recall whether he informed defendant of all the reasons for the traffic stop once defendant was pulled over. The trial court admitted a photograph depicting defendant’s license plate and the partial obstruction. The trial court also admitted body-worn camera footage from Officer Ivey’s partner depicting defendant’s car during the traffic stop. Defendant called his wife as a witness, who testified about her familiarity with the car defendant was driving and its inability to reach speeds of 60 miles an hour in short distances as recent as a week before defendant’s traffic stop. Judge Steven Howell denied defendant’s motion to suppress, finding the traffic stop was justified because of the lack of illumination and the partial obstruction of the license plate as corroborated by Officer Ivey’s inability to read the license plate and report it to dispatch.