People v. Le CA3

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Le CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072751

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62108365)

v.

BI LE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Bi Le was arrested and searched subsequent to the arrest. The arresting officer found methamphetamine in his pocket, and defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine after the magistrate denied his motion to suppress the evidence found on him on the ground that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion. He also contends that the amount of his restitution fine violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. We disagree and affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Scott Miller met with a man by the name of “Kevin” (whose real name was Thang Nguyen) on July 4, 2011, to purchase a discounted airline voucher after he saw the voucher advertised on craigslist. Prior to the meeting, Miller went online to confirm the voucher was valid. Miller then met with “Kevin” in a grocery store parking lot and paid cash for the voucher. Miller indicated that he was interested in other vouchers. “Kevin” texted Miller to tell him he had another voucher to sell. A second meeting was set for July 5, during which Miller was going to purchase the other voucher. After scheduling the July 5 meeting but before the meeting took place, Miller was contacted by the airline and told the first voucher was invalid. Miller called the police to inform them of the invalid voucher and also told them of the scheduled meeting to purchase the second voucher. When Miller contacted the police, he described “Kevin” as “[a]n Asian male who gave the first name of Kevin only, wearing glasses, a little heavyset.” “Kevin” was with a second man Miller described as skinny and Asian. The second man was driving a red convertible. Officers met in a parking lot on July 5 to watch “Kevin” and the second man. Miller waited in an unmarked car with a detective. While in the parking lot, an officer saw two men who matched the description Miller gave of the two men; they were in a silver truck. Miller identified one of the men as “Kevin,” the seller from July 4. Miller said the man with “Kevin” had essentially the same hairstyle and physical make up as the second man from July 4; this man was defendant. The magistrate found that defendant had similar characteristics to the driver from July 4. Officers watched two phone calls between Miller and “Kevin” while defendant was with “Kevin”. After the second phone call, the officers decided to move in to arrest the two because defendant and “Kevin” seemed agitated that Miller had not arrived. Before the officers approached defendant and “Kevin,” defendant had already started to