People v. Auer

California Court of Appeal Dec 24, 1991 No. C008199Published

Before: Puglia

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the impoundment of the defendant's vehicle was authorized under Vehicle Code section 22655.5 because the officer had probable cause to believe the vehicle was used to commit the public offense of driving with a suspended license. Furthermore, the defendant waived his challenge to the inventory search procedures by failing to raise that specific issue in the trial court.

Issues

Whether the impoundment of a vehicle on private property is authorized under Vehicle Code section 22655.5 when the driver is cited for driving with a suspended license.
Whether the defendant may raise the issue of standardized inventory search procedures for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the impoundment of defendant’s car was authorized by subdivision (a) of that section.”

“Since the People were not placed on notice of the necessity to present evidence refuting the theory defendant seeks to raise here, that theory may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”

[1667]

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), a jury convicted defendant of possession of oxycodone (percodan) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350; count I), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count II), and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)).

Sentenced to state prison for five years, defendant appeals contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during an impound search of his vehicle because (1) the seizure of his vehicle cannot be justified by statutes authorizing impoundment of vehicles (see Veh. Code, §§ 22651, 22653, 22655.5) or as an exercise of an officer’s community caretaking function (see

Cady

Dombrowski

(1973) 413 U.S. 433 [37 L.Ed.2d 706, 93 S.Ct. 2523]); and (2) even if the seizure were reasonable, the prosecution failed to show the impound search was governed by standardized police procedures.

We requested, and received, additional briefing on the applicability of Vehicle Code section 22655.5 to the impoundment of defendant’s car. We conclude the impoundment of defendant’s car was authorized by subdivision (a) of that section. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

On July 7, 1989, Rocklin Police Officer Frederic Rockholm observed defendant drive his automobile from a public street into the parking lot of McDonald’s restaurant. Defendant was alone in the car. Rockholm knew defendant from prior contacts and was aware defendant’s license had been suspended. Rockholm and Officer Barry approached defendant in the McDonald’s parking lot and asked him if his license was still suspended. Defendant admitted it was, and Rockholm so confirmed by radio check.

Rockholm did not intend to arrest defendant but only to cite him for driving with a suspended license. (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); all statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Vehicle Code.) However, defendant had been stopped several times for the same offense by, among others, Officer Barry. To ensure defendant would not drive his car after the officers departed, Rockholm decided to impound it.

People v. Auer

AI Brief

PUGLIA, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief