People v. Piar CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Oct 1, 2014 No. B255130Unpublished

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, and the subsequent search was lawful because the defendant was subject to a valid probation search condition.

Issues

Did the officer have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop based on a suspected exhaust system violation?
Did the search of the defendant's vehicle and person violate the Fourth Amendment given her probation status?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Throckmorton articulated facts sufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that appellant was driving a car with an exhaust system that had been modified to exceed statutory noise limits, in violation of section 27151.”

“A police officer may search a probationer with a search condition without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, so long as the search is not undertaken for harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons or in an unreasonable manner.”

Filed 10/1/14 P. v. Piar CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B255130 (Super. Ct. No. 2011042355) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

HEATHER ELIZABETH PIAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Heather Elizabeth Piar appeals from the judgment entered after she pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court reduced the offense to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b), suspended the imposition of sentence, and placed appellant on three years' formal probation with terms and conditions (Pen. Code, § 1210.1). Appellant contends the court erred in denying her motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Shortly after noon on December 2, 2011, Simi Valley Police Officer Shawn Throckmorton and his partner were on patrol. Throckmorton had more than six years of law enforcement experience. Throckmorton was driving on Los Angeles Avenue near

1 The cited facts were presented at the preliminary hearing.

Tapo Canyon when the sound of a very loud muffler drew his attention to a black Hyundai Tiburon. The Tiburon had just turned from Darrah onto Los Angeles Avenue. The noise could be heard from two or three hundred feet away.2 Throckmorton also noticed that the Tiburon's muffler was larger and rounder than an ordinary muffler, and appeared to be an after-market part. He suspected the driver was operating the Tiburon with an exhaust system that had been modified to produce excessive engine noise, in violation of Vehicle Code section 27151, subdivision (a).3 Throckmorton followed the Tiburon and ran its license plate. He learned that its registered owner, appellant, was on probation and subject to search conditions.4 He stopped the Tiburon and asked the driver for her name and her driver's license. When asked, appellant admitted she was on probation. Throckmorton searched the Tiburon and

People v. Piar CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

HEATHER ELIZABETH PIAR,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERREN, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.

AI Brief