People v. Campbell CA3

California Court of Appeal May 7, 2014 No. C073601Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the traffic stop was lawful based on a Vehicle Code violation and that subsequent searches of the defendant's vehicle were lawful because the defendant was subject to a probation search condition and provided valid consent.

Issues

Whether the initial traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of a Vehicle Code violation.
Whether the searches of the defendant's vehicle were lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[A]n officer’s reliance on the wrong statute does not render his actions unlawful if there is a right statute that applies to the defendant’s conduct.”

Filed 5/7/14 P. v. Campbell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C073601

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62097495)

KIRK EDWARD CAMPBELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the magistrate (Judge Curry) denied the suppression motion of defendant Kirk Edward Campbell, a jury found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, possessing a controlled substance with a firearm, and eight other drug-related felony offenses. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment (Judge Wachob), contending the magistrate erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence. We disagree. Defendant was speeding, so a deputy sheriff lawfully stopped him. The subsequent two

searches of his car were also lawful because defendant was on searchable probation and also gave the deputy consent to search. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Placer County Deputy Sheriff Eric Bakulich was patrolling Douglas Boulevard in Roseville at 1:00 a.m. in March 2010, when he saw a man driving a Ford Escort “slightly over the speed limit.” The deputy estimated that the Escort was going 50 miles per hour in a 45 mile-per-hour zone by driving behind the Escort and looking at his patrol car’s calibrated speedometer. The deputy ran a “DMV check” of the Escort’s license plate and found out the name of the registered owner of the Escort, who was male. The deputy then ran a records check of the registered owner and saw that his driver’s license had expired. The deputy stopped the Escort based on his assessment that the driver was speeding and driving on an expired license.1 Defendant was the driver. Deputy Bakulich ran a records check on defendant and learned he was “on searchable probation out of Sacramento County” and that defendant was the son of the registered owner of the Escort. He then asked defendant if there was anything illegal in the car, and defendant said there was not. The deputy “asked if he had any problems with us looking through the vehicle.”2 Defendant “told [the deputy] no.” The resulting search uncovered a loaded firearm in a backpack in the trunk. Defendant was arrested for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Escort was towed and impounded. Citrus Heights Police Officer Daniel Buckenmeyer went to the tow yard to further search the Escort. Before searching the

People v. Campbell CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C073601

KIRK EDWARD CAMPBELL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

HOCH , J.

AI Brief