California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 2026 No. E084901Unpublished
Filed 3/26/26 P. v. Huffman CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E084901
v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2302421)
BRAEDIN MCKINNEY HUFFMAN, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Brian Hill, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Barbara Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Dan E. Chambers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Daniel J. Hilton,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
During a traffic stop, officers searched defendant and appellant Braedin Huffman’s
car and found an unregistered and loaded firearm in the glove box. After unsuccessfully
moving to suppress evidence of the gun, defendant pled guilty to one misdemeanor count
of concealing a firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (c)(6)). The trial court
sentenced defendant to time served, with one year of probation.
Defendant contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress. We
disagree and affirm the judgment.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Around midnight on a Friday night, Riverside Police Officer Hussey and his
partner, Officer Butler, were on DUI patrol in downtown Riverside. They noticed a car
with “dark front window tint” that appeared unlawful (see Veh. Code, § 26708, subd.), so
they pulled the car over. When Officer Hussey approached the driver’s side window, he
noticed the driver (defendant) had “bloodshot, watery eyes.” Officer Hussey also smelled
a “strong” odor of “burnt marijuana,” which suggested that “someone was smoking it
inside” the car. Officer Hussey did not think there was marijuana in a container because
the smell was not “localized.” Instead, the “entire vehicle smelled like there was
cannabis inside.” Given the smell and the appearance of defendant’s eyes, Officer
Hussey suspected that defendant had been driving under the influence.
2
Officer Hussey asked defendant if he had been smoking or drinking, and he denied
both. Officer Hussey noticed three other passengers in the vehicle and asked defendant if
they had been “pregaming,” meaning whether they had been smoking or drinking before
going somewhere. Defendant did not answer whether the group had been “pregaming,”
and instead responded that he was the group’s designated driver and they had come from
Orange County. Officer Hussey then asked defendant to get out of the vehicle and
perform a field sobriety test (FST). Officer Hussey also asked defendant’s three
passengers to get out of the vehicle as well.
Officer Hussey “ran” defendant’s license for about a minute. There were no “hits”
for defendant nor any outstanding warrants for him.
Officer Hussey then performed a FST on defendant for recent cannabis use. He
checked for a “lack of convergence” in defendant’s eyes, which is “one of the biggest red
flags of recent cannabis use.” Since Officer Hussey did not observe a lack of
convergence in defendant’s eyes, he concluded that defendant was not driving under the
influence. As he finished the FST, Officer Hussey asked defendant why his eyes were
glossy, and he said it was because he had been working on his car all day. Defendant
then mentioned that the group was going out to celebrate the birthday of one of the
passengers.
Because of the strong smell of burnt marijuana, Officer Hussey continued to
believe there was an unlawful open container of marijuana in defendant’s car, so he asked
defendant if there was marijuana in the car. Defendant said there “probably” was
3
marijuana in the car, but he did not know where and it was not his. When asked how
much marijuana there was, defendant said there was “less than an ounce.” Officer
Hussey asked defendant if Officer Butler could get the marijuana from the car. Officer
Hussey and defendant walked over to where the three passengers were standing and
asked the front-seat passenger if there was marijuana in the car, and she said she had
some in her bag in the front. Officer Hussey asked her if there was anything else in the
car, and she said there was a bottle of alcohol next to her bag.
Officer Butler began searching defendant’s car from the front passenger side to
look for the marijuana. He found an open bottle of liquor and an unopened can of 1 alcoholic tea. Officer Butler then found a black bag and asked the front passenger if it
was her bag with the marijuana, and she confirmed that it was. In the bag, Officer Butler 2 found a closed plastic container with marijuana. Officer Butler then opened the glove
box and found a handgun and then found a bong in the backseat of the car. The officers
arrested defendant and his three passengers. The entire encounter, from the initial stop to
the discovery of the firearm, lasted about seven to eight minutes.
1 Defendant contends the record is unclear as to whether the bottle of alcohol was open, but Officer Hussey testified that it was open and his bodycam footage shows that it was nearly empty. (Defense Exh. B: 00:00:05.) 2 There is no information in the record as to the quantity of marijuana in the container. And although there is no evidence in the record expressly stating that the container was closed when found, Officer Hussey stated he “didn’t open it up” and “shook it,” and his body camera footage shows that it was closed.
4
Defendant was charged with one count of concealing an unregistered and loaded
firearm in his vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)). Defendant unsuccessfully moved
under Penal Code section 1538.5 to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of the
vehicle. The trial court (Hon. Robert Hill) found that the officers did not unduly prolong
the stop. As to the vehicle search, the trial court found that (1) the officers had reasonable
suspicion to stop defendant’s car given the dark window tint, (2) Officer Hussey had
reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was driving under the influence of cannabis
given the odor of marijuana and defendant’s watery, bloodshot eyes, and (3) for these
reasons, plus the fact that Officer Hussey became “aware of the fact that marijuana [was]
somewhere located in the vehicle,” Officer Hussey had probable cause to search
defendant’s car for an open container.
Defendant later unsuccessfully moved under Penal Code section 995 to set aside
the information on the same ground. As before, the trial court (Hon. Charles Koosed)
again found: (1) the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s car given the
dark window tint; (2) the traffic stop was not unduly long; (3) Officer Hussey has
reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was driving under the influence of cannabis
given the odor of marijuana and defendant’s watery, bloodshot eyes; and (4) for these two
reasons, Officer Hussey had probable cause to search defendant’s car for an open
container.
Finally, defendant unsuccessfully moved a third time to suppress the evidence, this
time under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i). The trial court (Hon. Walter H.
5
Kubelun) found it was bound by the court’s prior order denying the second motion to
suppress and, in any event, both motions to suppress were properly denied for the court’s
stated reasons.
After pleading guilty to one misdemeanor count of concealing a firearm in a
vehicle (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (c)(6)) and being sentenced to time served and one
year of probation, defendant timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendant does not dispute that the officers lawfully pulled him over and Officer
Hussey lawfully performed the FST. He contends, however, that (1) Officer Hussey
unlawfully prolonged his detainment after he passed the FST and Officer Hussey
concluded he was not driving under the influence and (2) the officers lacked probable
cause to search his glove box. We disagree on both points.
A. Standard of Review
We defer to the trial court’s findings of fact in ruling on a suppression motion if
supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.) But
we exercise our “‘independent judgment,’” based on those factual findings, to determine
whether a seizure or search was reasonable. (People v. Castro (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th
314, 319.) When, as here, the trial court denied a motion to suppress, we review the
record in the light most favorable to the People. (People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013,
1053.)
6
B. Prolonged Detainment
1. Applicable Law
A traffic stop can become unlawful when an officer prolongs that stop beyond the
“‘time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission,’” which is to address the
traffic violation that justified the stop. (Rodriguez v. United States 575 U.S. 348, 357,
quoting Illinois v. Caballes (2005) 543 U.S. 405, 407.) There is thus no precise limit on
how long a traffic stop may last. (People v. Ayon (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 926, 937
(Ayon).)
Instead, “‘the question is whether the police diligently pursued a means of
investigation reasonably designed to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly.’” (Ayon,
supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 937.) But if the officer develops a reasonable suspicion of a
different offense during the stop, the officer may prolong the stop for a reasonable
amount of time to investigate the potential offense. (Rodriguez v. United States, supra,
575 U.S. at p. 357; People v. Russell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 96, 102 [“Circumstances
which develop during a detention may provide reasonable suspicion to prolong the
detention.”].) However, the officer may not conduct checks unrelated to the traffic stop
in a way that prolongs the stop “absent the reasonable suspicion ordinarily demanded to
justify detaining an individual.” (Rodriguez v. United States, supra, at p. 355.)
2. Analysis
We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the stop was not unduly
prolonged after defendant successfully completed the FST.
7
To begin with, the fact that the entire encounter from the stop to finding the gun
took seven to eight minutes, only a few of which were after the FST, suggests that the
detention was not unduly prolonged. (See People v. Esparza (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th
1084, 1087, 1098.) And the fact that defendant passed the FST did not dispel Officer
Hussey’s suspicion that there was an open container of marijuana in the car. That
suspicion was reasonable given the strong odor of burnt marijuana emanating from
defendant’s car. (See People v. Hall (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 946, 953.) Officer Hussey
thus had lawful grounds to prolong the stop for a reasonable amount of time to
investigate a potential open container violation.
Officer Hussey then permissibly investigated that concern over the next few
minutes. Just after finishing the FST, Officer Hussey asked defendant why his eyes were
glossy. About 25 seconds after finishing the FST, Officer Hussey asked defendant if
there was marijuana in the car, and defendant said there “probably” was. Defendant then
asked if he could get the marijuana, and Officer Hussey told him no, so they walked to
the passengers and defendant asked them where it was. The front seat passenger said
there was marijuana in her bag and, in response to Officer Hussey’s question if there was
“anything else,” she admitted there was a bottle of alcohol. Only about 90 seconds
elapsed between her admission and the completion of defendant’s FST. As we explain
below, by that point, the officers had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle. We
therefore conclude the officers diligently and reasonably, and thus lawfully, prolonged
defendant’s stop after the FST to investigate a potential open container violation. (See
8
Rodriguez v. United States, supra, 575 U.S. at p. 357; Ayon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p.
937.)
Three cases defendant relies on do not alter our conclusion. In People v. Gyorgy
(2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 659, the officer stopped the defendant for an unsafe lane change
and then—without any reasonable suspicion of a drug violation—asked the defendant
about his criminal background and whether he was a sex offender registrant, patted him
down, and used a police dog to sniff the defendant’s car. There was simply no
justification for prolonging the defendant’s detention and the resultant search. There was
likewise no evidence whatsoever of a drug violation that justified a prolonged stop and
search after a traffic stop in People v. Suggs (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1360, 1362-1366, or
Ayon, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at pp. 940-944.
C. Vehicle Search
1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Warrantless searches are generally presumed to be unreasonable and unlawful.
(Robey v. Superior Court (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1218, 1225.) Under the “automobile
exception” to this general rule, however, a warrantless search of a lawfully stopped
vehicle is permissible if the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains
contraband or evidence of criminal activity. (Ibid.) When an officer has probable cause
to search the vehicle under the automobile exception, the officer “may conduct a probing
search of compartments and containers within the vehicle whose contents are not in plain
view.” (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 800.) The People bear the burden of
9
proving that the automobile exception applies. (People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th
824, 830.)
To determine whether probable cause exists, we ask whether the totality of the
circumstances show that there was a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found.” (Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238.) Because this is an
objective standard, the officer’s subjective beliefs are irrelevant. (People v. Lee (2019) 40
Cal.App.5th 853, 862.)
2. Analysis
Defendant does not dispute that the officers lawfully pulled defendant over, nor
does he dispute that Officer Hussey lawfully required him to perform a FST. Defendant
is correct to do so because the officers reasonably believed his car’s window tint was
unlawfully dark, and the strong odor smell of burnt marijuana, coupled with defendant’s
glossy, bloodshot eyes gave Officer Hussey reasonable grounds to believe defendant was
driving under the influence. That, in turn, gave Officer Hussey reasonable grounds to
require defendant to perform a FST to determine whether he was driving under the
influence.
After performing the FST, however, Officer Hussey concluded that defendant was
not driving under the influence. Officer Hussey nonetheless suspected an open container
violation because of the smell of burnt marijuana in defendant’s car and his concern that
defendant’s passengers may have been “pregaming” by smoking marijuana in the car. As
he put it, even “if [defendant] was not under the influence, necessarily, in my opinion,
10
there is still cannabis, when I smelled burnt cannabis inside.” Officer Hussey was
concerned that, even “if [defendant] was not smoking prior to my stop, then he does have
access to what is in the vehicle.”
We first note that we disagree with the People and the trial court that Officer
Hussey had probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle for an open container violation
after defendant passed the FST in part because of his bloodshot, watery eyes. Officer
Hussey testified that, although he concluded defendant was not driving under the
influence, he remained concerned there was an open container violation because of the
smell of burnt marijuana and his suspicion that defendant’s passengers were
“pregaming.” Nothing in Officer Hussey’s testimony (nor anything else in the record)
suggests that the officers continued the detention and investigation into a possible open
container violation after defendant’s FST because of his bloodshot, watery eyes. There is
likewise no evidence in the record, from Officer Hussey or otherwise, that would support
a finding that defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes because of an open container
violation. Nor is there any evidence that Officer Hussey disbelieved defendant’s
explanation that his eyes were red and watery because he had been working on his car all
day.
In short, the state of defendant’s eyes contributed to and supported only Officer
Hussey’s decision to investigate whether defendant was driving under the influence. On
this record, defendant’s bloodshot, watery eyes did not play any role in determining
whether there was probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle for an open container
11
3 violation after he passed the FST.
That leaves (1) the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from defendant’s car, (2)
his passenger’s admission that she was carrying marijuana and alcohol on her in the car,
and (3) Officer Hussey’s suspicion that defendant’s passengers might have been
“pregaming” (smoking marijuana and/or drinking alcohol) in the car.
The smell of marijuana alone, without any indication that it had been used while
driving, is insufficient to establish probable cause to search a vehicle for an open
container violation. (See Blakes v. Superior Court (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 904, 912;
People v. Johnson (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 620, 634) An admission that there is marijuana
or alcohol in the car, without more, is also insufficient to establish probable cause to
search a vehicle for an open container violation. (See People v. Moore (2021) 64
Cal.App.5th 291, 300; People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796, 802; People v.
Shumake (2019) 45 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 8; People v. Lee, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th 8at p.
856.) There must be some other evidence of an open container violation. (E.g., People v.
McGee, supra, at p. 804 [officers saw “unsealed bag of marijuana in the passenger’s
cleavage”]; People v. Fews (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 553, 562 [driver admitted half-burnt
3 We do not suggest that bloodshot and/or watery eyes could be evidence of an open container violation in other circumstances. Here, however, Officer Hussey never suggested that, after defendant passed the FST, his bloodshot, watery eyes indicated that there may be an open container of marijuana in his car. Instead, Officer Hussey testified that defendant’s bloodshot, watery eyes suggested that he might have been driving under the influence. But that suspicion was dispelled after defendant passed the FST, and the state of defendant’s eyes played no role in Officer Hussey’s decision to continue investigating a potential open container violation after the FST.
12
cigar in his hand had marijuana].)
But probable cause is determined by looking at the totality of the circumstances.
(People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231.) Here, there were several indicators that
defendant and/or his passengers had an unlawful open container of marijuana. First,
Officer Hussey noticed a strong odor of freshly burnt marijuana immediately upon
approaching defendant’s vehicle, which indicated someone might have recently smoked
marijuana in the car. (See People v. Moore, supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 300 [“[T]here is a
recognized ‘“commonsense distinction between the smells of burnt and raw
marijuana.”’”].) Second, one of defendant’s passengers admitted that she was carrying
marijuana in the car’s front seat, which further bolstered Officer Hussey’s suspicion that
someone had been smoking marijuana while defendant was driving. Third, Officer
Hussey had a reasonable suspicion that defendant’s passengers might have “pregamed”
(smoked marijuana) in the car for several reasons. The car smelled heavily of burnt
marijuana. Defendant and his passengers were on their way from Orange County to
celebrate a passenger’s birthday in downtown Riverside. They were stopped around
midnight on a Friday known in an area known for nightlife, where, in Officer Hussey’s
experience, people “pregame” in their cars. One of the passengers admitted she was
carrying marijuana and alcohol with her in the car’s front seat. Most importantly,
defendant did not deny that his passengers had been “pregaming” when Officer Hussey
asked him if they had, but instead replied that he was the DD, which suggested that the
passengers had “pregamed.” Coupled with the strong odor of burnt marijuana and the
13
front seat passenger’s admission that she had marijuana in her purse, it was reasonable for
Officer Hussey to believe that their “pregaming” included smoking marijuana in the car.
Taken together, these facts suggested a fair probability that the officers would
uncover an open container of marijuana in defendant’s vehicle. They therefore had
probable cause to search it. (Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at p. 238; People v. Diaz
(2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1172, 1178.) As a result, they had probable cause to search the
vehicle’s glove box. (United States v. Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 800; People v. Moore,
supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 302.) The trial court therefore properly denied defendant’s
motion to suppress.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the traffic stop was not unlawfully prolonged and that officers had probable cause to search the vehicle for an open container of marijuana based on the totality of the circumstances, including the odor of burnt marijuana and passenger admissions.
Issues
Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged after the defendant passed a field sobriety test.
Whether the officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle's glove box for an open container of marijuana.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The officers diligently and reasonably, and thus lawfully, prolonged defendant’s stop after the FST to investigate a potential open container violation.”
“Taken together, these facts suggested a fair probability that the officers would uncover an open container of marijuana in defendant’s vehicle. They therefore had probable cause to search it.”