People v. Murray CA3

California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 2015 No. C076661Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the traffic stop was not unlawfully prolonged because the officer's records check was essentially simultaneous with the traffic investigation, and the defendant was estopped from challenging the patdown search because he provided a false identity that prevented the officer from verifying his actual probationary status.

Issues

Whether the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged by the officer's request for passenger identification and warrant checks.
Whether the defendant is estopped from challenging the legality of a patdown search when he provided a false identity that prevented the officer from learning his true probationary status.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As a result, the officer did not prolong the authorized detention in any appreciable amount before developing independent reasonable suspicions about defendant’s criminal activity.”

“We concluded in Watkins that the action of affirmatively preventing the officer from learning about the actual probationary status of that defendant estopped him from arguing that the officer illegally conducted a probation search”

Filed 4/6/15 P. v. Murray CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076661

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MM125766C)

BRYANT DUANE MURRAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant Bryant Duane Murray entered a plea of no contest to a charge of impersonation, with a stipulated term of two years in state prison. In exchange, the trial court dismissed a charge of carrying a concealed (steak) knife and multiple recidivist allegations.

On appeal, defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. He contends the evidence of impersonation that caused the officer to focus on him was the result of an

unduly prolonged traffic stop, and his possession of the concealed knife was the product of a subsequent unlawful patdown search. We shall affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant premised his written motion to suppress on facts from the testimony of the arresting officer at his preliminary hearing (the transcript of which the trial court reviewed). The arresting officer also testified at the hearing on the motion. We therefore draw our facts from both sources, resolving all conflicts in favor of the trial court’s ruling. (People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 298-299 (Hernandez).)

The officer had been patrolling the City of Tracy in the early morning hours of February 22, 2013, when he stopped a car being driven with an inoperable headlight at 4:50 a.m. Defendant—one of three passengers—was sitting behind the driver. The officer requested the requisite documentation from the driver to confirm his identity and to submit a warrant check, as well as requesting the three passengers to identify themselves for purposes of warrant checks. When he asked the occupants of the car if anyone was on probation, no one answered.

People v. Murray CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C076661

BRYANT DUANE MURRAY,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

BUTZ , J.

NICHOLSON , J.

AI Brief