People v. Hill CA2/1

Filed 4/30/14 P. v. Hill CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B249361

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA072579) v.

RONALD HILL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael V. Jesic, Judge. Reversed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Timothy M. Weiner, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

Defendant Ronald Hill pleaded guilty to acquiring personal identifying information with a prior conviction for the same offense in violation of Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (c)(2),1 forgery (§ 475), transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and receiving stolen property (§ 496), a total of four counts. He was sentenced to six years in the county jail. This appeal, authorized by subdivision (m) of section 1538.5, is from the order denying his motion to suppress made as part of the preliminary hearing.2 Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court ruled erroneously on defendant’s suppression motion, mistakenly finding that a warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle that disclosed incriminating evidence was lawful because it was an inventory search conducted in connection with the impoundment of a vehicle. We conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the items sought to be suppressed were the result of a lawful impound inventory search for two reasons. First, the police officer who conducted the search testified that it was a “probable cause” search, not an inventory search. Second, the People did not meet its burden of establishing that the search was made pursuant to a standard police policy governing searches following impoundment of a vehicle or that the police officers followed that policy. Such a showing is an absolute requirement. Therefore, we reverse. FACTS On October 17, 2012, Los Angeles Police Officer John Antonioli and his partner, Officer Burke,3 made a traffic stop on a public street for a loud exhaust and also because