People v. Gardnercraft CA1/3

Filed 10/31/25 P. v. Gardnercraft CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170175 v. EMMANUEL DAVID (Solano County GARDNERCRAFT, Super. Ct. No. VCR238114) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Emmanuel David Gardnercraft appeals a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to illegal gun possession. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1); all statutory references are to this code.) He moved to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 on the ground the firearm was found during an illegal search of his vehicle. Officer Daniel Callison of the City of Vallejo Police Department testified to the following at the combined preliminary hearing and hearing on the suppression motion. On the afternoon of June 11, 2021, he and another

1

officer, William Rhodes, were on patrol. Their attention was drawn to a Buick, which was “just driving in the area.” They checked the vehicle’s license plate and learned the registration was expired. Callison turned on the patrol vehicle’s lights to make a traffic stop. The Buick continued for about 30 seconds, making multiple turns before eventually pulling over. The delay was unusual; in Callison’s experience, drivers pull over almost immediately when he initiates a traffic stop. Callison approached the Buick and saw defendant in the driver’s seat. Defendant told Callison he did not have a license or identification and explained he was from out of state, was having a family emergency, and was getting something to eat. Callison was unconvinced by this explanation, both because he thought it was odd that defendant was getting something to eat during a family emergency and because it was his experience that drivers who claimed a family emergency typically did so as a pretext to distract the officer. Callison asked defendant to step out of the vehicle, and as defendant did so Callison saw a five-inch-long folding knife in plain view in the driver’s door pocket. Callison was concerned for his safety and concerned there might be other weapons in the car, and he patted defendant down in search of weapons, finding none. He asked defendant for his name and birth date, and defendant responded, “Garcia [pause] David” and provided his correct birthdate. When questioned, defendant first said Garcia was his last name, then that it was his first name and that David was his last name. Callison thought the name defendant provided was false, and because of that, the presence of a weapon, and defendant’s failure to stop promptly, Callison placed him in handcuffs and had him sit in the rear seat of the patrol vehicle. Defendant asked Callison why he was being arrested, and Callison said it