People v. Saphieh CA5

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Saphieh 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F068528 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF265544) v.

OSAMA FAREED SAPHIEH, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Joseph A. Kalashian, Judge. Kurt David Hermansen, 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, Louis M. Vasquez and Charity S. Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana, the odor of which an officer noticed during a traffic stop, defendant Osama Fareed Saphieh was convicted by no contest plea of transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he made the stop. We affirm. FACTS At the suppression hearing, Officer Hernandez testified that on March 21, 2012, he conducted a traffic stop of a Yukon sports utility vehicle driven by defendant because the vehicle was missing a front license plate, a violation of Vehicle Code section 5200.1 The officer was driving in the opposite direction of defendant’s vehicle when the officer noticed it was missing the front license plate. It was daylight and the officer had a clear view of the front of the vehicle when he made this determination. The officer turned around and followed defendant. The officer noticed that the back of the vehicle had a dealer placard on the back plate. This did not eliminate his suspicion because he knew it was common for criminals to use dealer plates to go undetected when they stole vehicles. The officer stopped the vehicle because he wanted to check the registration and make sure the vehicle was not stolen. He did not notice the temporary permit on the windshield until after he pulled the vehicle over. Defense counsel argued at the hearing that People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295 (Hernandez) required the court to grant defendant’s motion to suppress. The court, however, distinguished Hernandez on its facts, stating: “The distinction is, and the court reads it as the prosecution does, [the officer in this case] didn’t see the temporary sticker in the window until after the detention. So the detention is lawful, and that’s a distinction