People v. Faddler

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 1982 No. Crim. 11300Published

Before: Puglia

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Exigent circumstances, including officer safety concerns during a lawful traffic stop, justify a police officer's entry into a vehicle to retrieve a driver's license from the glove compartment when the driver is unable to do so himself.

Issues

Whether an officer's entry into a vehicle to retrieve a driver's license constitutes an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether exigent circumstances justified the officer's intrusion into the vehicle to obtain the license.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think, however, the trial court erred in rejecting the theory advanced by the People and accepted by the magistrate: that exigent circumstances justified the officer’s entry of defendants’ vehicle to retrieve the driver’s license”

“We are satisfied that no constitutional rights are implicated by the type of minimal intrusion which occurred here, given its limited objective, legitimate purpose, and the exigent circumstances”

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Defendants were charged in two counts with (1) possession for sale and (2) transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11359, 11360, subd. (a)). The superior court determined that evidence essential to support the magistrate’s holding order was the product of an illegal search and seizure and granted defendants’ motion

[609]

to dismiss the information (Pen. Code, § 995). The People appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1238, subd. (a)(8).) We shall reverse.

At the time of the alleged offenses, Sheriff’s Deputy Brand was on patrol alone in a squad car. At about 2 a.m. he observed a vehicle being driven erratically. A passenger in the vehicle was leaning out of a window shouting and waving what appeared to be a whiskey glass. Officer Brand attempted to stop the vehicle to investigate a possible violation of Vehicle Code section 23102, subdivision (a) (driving under the influence of an intoxicant). His first effort to detain the vehicle was frustrated when the driver, having pulled over and stopped on the officer’s command, resumed travel as Brand was exiting his squad car. As Brand again stopped the vehicle, another officer arrived to provide assistance.

There were three men in the car. Defendant Faddler was the driver; defendants Raymond Williams and Rodney Harold Balsón were passengers. Brand ordered the occupants out of the vehicle and directed them to the rear of their automobile in front of his patrol car. Williams was slow to comply and appeared to be under the influence of an intoxicant. Balsón was boisterous and “mouthy.”

Brand asked Faddler for his driver’s license. He advised it was in the glove compartment and started to move toward his car to retrieve the license. Brand ordered him to stay where he was and proceeded to the defendants’ vehicle himself to obtain the driver’s license from the glove compartment. Upon opening the front passenger door, Brand observed in plain view on the floorboard a baggie containing marijuana. Defendants were then arrested and placed in custody in the patrol vehicle. Following the arrests a search of defendants’ car produced more marijuana.

It cannot be seriously disputed that Officer Brand’s articulated suspicions reasonably warranted the detention of the defendants.

People v. Faddler

AI Brief

PUGLIA, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief