People v. Cooc CA3

Filed 9/24/25 P. v. Cooc CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100523

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23FE015641)

v.

JIMMY CHI COOC,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2023, defendant Jimmy Chi Cooc was pulled over and arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. During a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to a support reasonable suspicion of his crime. The magistrate denied the motion to suppress, as did the trial court. Defendant later pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm and driving under the influence. Defendant appeals, requesting this court reverse the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Early September 30, 2023, California Highway Patrol Officer Juan Garcia and his partner pulled defendant over for suspicion of driving under the influence and subsequently arrested him. Defendant later pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm and driving under the influence. On October 30, 2023, defendant filed a motion under Penal Code1 section 1538.5 to suppress all evidence related to his arrest. During the preliminary examination, Officer Garcia testified he saw a vehicle “that was weaving in a serpentine manner within [a] lane of the roadway,” agreeing with the description defendant was “drifting within the lane.” When asked to clarify the term serpentine, Officer Garcia explained, “[G]enerally they use the entire width of the lane to drive, so they’ll drive all the way to the right, and then they’ll drive all the way to the left, in a continuous fashion.” Officer Garcia further said he did not consider the weaving to be “drastic,” clarifying: “It’s kind of more slower in motion, if you will. It’s not really jerking or anything like that.” Based on his observations, Officer Garcia testified he “believed that the driver was possibly impaired.” He estimated the duration of his observation to last 30 seconds and span a distance of “maybe a mile.” After reviewing the dashcam video, Officer Garcia confirmed defendant’s vehicle was “weaving” before he initiated a traffic stop to investigate the driver’s possible impairment. In the dashcam video played for the trial court, the officers can be heard asking after pulling defendant over if he was “falling asleep or what[ was] going on.” Officer Garcia testified he had received approximately 56 hours of training related to driving under the influence and had conducted “several hundred [driving under the influence] investigations” in his capacity as a peace officer.