In re Oscar P. CA5

California Court of Appeal Dec 6, 2013 No. F067219Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the traffic stop was lawful because the officer had reasonable suspicion of a vehicle code violation based on a DMV record check and the observation of fake registration tags, which did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop?
Did the officer's check of DMV registration records violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Officer Piper’s search of DMV records did not implicate appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights because appellant did not have an expectation of privacy in records relating to his truck’s registration.”

Filed 12/6/13 In re Oscar P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re OSCAR P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, F067219

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JW130409-00)

v. OPINION OSCAR P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Peter A. Warmerdam, Referee. Holly Jackson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Heather S. Gimle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Detjen, J.

The court adjudged appellant, Oscar P., a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after it sustained petition allegations charging appellant with possession of concentrated cannabis (count 1/Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (a)) and driving without a valid driver’s license (count 2/Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). On appeal, appellant contends the court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to suppress. We affirm. FACTS On February 5, 2013, Bakersfield Police Officer Jeremy Piper stopped the truck appellant was driving and arrested him after finding 11.4 grams of concentrated cannabis on him. Appellant did not have a valid driver’s license in his possession. On March 7, 2013, the district attorney filed a petition charging appellant with the two counts the court sustained. On March 27, 2013, appellant’s defense counsel filed a motion to suppress alleging that appellant was unlawfully detained. On April 24, 2013, the court heard appellant’s suppression motion during appellant’s adjudication hearing. During the hearing, Officer Piper testified that on February 5, 2013, at 11:40 a.m., while on patrol, he drove behind a truck driven by appellant that appeared to have a current registration sticker on its license plate. However, when the officer ran a DMV check of the license plate number, he discovered the registration had expired on October 31, 2011. Officer Piper conducted a traffic stop of the truck and contacted appellant, who told him he did not have a driver’s license. Officer Piper smelled a strong odor of marijuana and asked appellant to exit the truck so he could investigate appellant’s identity and the odor of marijuana. Officer Piper pat searched appellant and felt a prescription bottle in his left front pants pocket. The officer asked for and received permission from appellant to search the pants pocket. As soon as

In re Oscar P. CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, F067219

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief