The People v. Jacobson CA2/1

Filed 9/20/13 P. v. Jacobson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B248574

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA075603) v.

RICHARD JACOBSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern and Dalila C. Lyons, Judges. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________

A March 6, 2013 information charged appellant Richard Jacobson with one count of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378), and one count of transportation of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The information alleged that Jacobson had a 2008 prior conviction constituting a strike within the meaning of Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and that he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court heard and granted Jacobson’s Pitchess motion, which sought information regarding complaints against, or information about, acts of moral turpitude, filing of false reports, perjury, or dishonesty, by the arresting Sheriff’s Department Deputy. We have reviewed the sealed transcript of the in camera hearing at which the documents were produced pursuant to that order, and the trial court’s conclusion that none of the documents produced related to complaints against, or information about, filing of false reports, lying, perjury, or dishonesty, by the arresting Sheriff’s Department Deputy. The court also denied Jacobson’s motion under Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress evidence recovered in a search of his automobile, after hearing testimony from the arresting officer. The arresting officer testified that while she was on routine patrol at about 3:45 in the afternoon, driving north on a major boulevard, she observed Jacobson driving south in a 1990’s vintage Buick with a broken headlight and a very large crack in its windshield. She testified that the crack was across the entire windshield and appeared to obstruct the driver’s view. When the officer made a traffic stop of the vehicle, she observed a large trash bag, and several duffle bags and packs. After Jacobson was detained he made statements to the officer, she searched the car, and she recovered evidence leading to the charges against him. Jacobson’s motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 argued that the traffic stop was illegal on two grounds. First, Vehicle Code section 26710 provides that it is unlawful to operate a vehicle when its windshield is in a condition that