California Court of Appeal Jun 5, 2015 No. E061081Unpublished
Filed 6/5/15 P. v. Taylor CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E061081
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1302599)
MONTRELL LAMONTE TAYLOR, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. R. Glenn Yabuno,
Judge. Affirmed.
Eric A. Dumars, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Montrell Lamonte Taylor was charged by information
with possession of ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1), count 1.) The
information also alleged that defendant was prohibited from owning or possessing a
firearm, having been previously convicted of certain offenses. (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§§ 8100, 8103.) It was further alleged that defendant had one prior strike conviction
Here, the People established that probable cause existed to search defendant’s van
pursuant to the automobile exception. When Officer Olvera caught up to defendant at the
van, he observed defendant standing in the doorway of the van. Directly next to where
defendant was standing, Officer Olvera observed a glass vial in the door panel, in plain
view. The vial contained a liquid substance with cigarette tobacco debris. Based upon
9
his training and experience, Officer Olvera believed the substance in the vial was PCP.
He knew from his training and experience that PCP was normally packaged in either a
plastic or glass vial. He had observed the partial debris of cigarettes inside vials of PCP
on prior arrests. Since he believed the vial contained PCP, it was reasonable for him to
search the van for more drugs. He knew that drugs could be stored in various locations,
as he had previously seen narcotics stored for transportation inside small compartments in
vehicles. Thus, it was also reasonable for him to search the compartments in defendant’s
van. While searching, Officer Olvera located the two shotgun shells in a cubby
compartment in the rear of the van.
Defendant contends that Officer Olvera merely found “an innocuous brown liquid
in suspect packaging,” and that he gave a “very broad and unspecific accounting” of his
experience in identifying drugs. Defendant further asserts that Officer Olvera “did not
name a single time when he found actual PCP in a similar package.” Defendant claims
that the packaging “could have been anything,” such as menthol flavoring, massage oil,
or smoking oil. In support of his argument, he cites Thomas v. Superior Court (1972) 22
Cal.App.3d 972 (Thomas). However, Thomas is distinguishable. In that case, a police
officer stopped a vehicle to ascertain the identities of the persons in it. (Id. at p. 975.)
The officer observed a “hand-rolled cigarette in white paper” on the back seat. (Ibid.)
Based on that observation, the officer arrested the defendant for possession of marijuana.
He then entered the defendant’s car and seized the cigarette. (Ibid.) The appellate court
held that the arrest for possession and seizure of the cigarette were unlawful because
10
there was no evidence of circumstances indicating that the cigarette contained marijuana.
(Id. at pp. 979-980.) The court noted that there was no evidence concerning the
circumstances, or the officer’s prior experience in telling the difference between the
appearance of hand-rolled tobacco cigarettes and hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes. (Id. at
p. 976.) The court also stated that it was “inherently impossible for the contents of a
closed opaque container to be in plain view . . . .” (Id. at p. 977.)
In contrast, here, Officer Olvera specifically testified about his prior experience
and training in identifying PCP. He stated that he had completed the San Bernardino
County Sheriff’s Academy, and had since had ongoing training with other organizations
such as the California Narcotics Officer’s Association. He also said he had been
involved in countless arrests regarding possession and transportation of controlled
substances, including PCP. Furthermore, Officer Olvera testified that, on prior arrests, he
had seen cigarette debris inside glass vials containing liquid PCP. He further explained
how users commonly ingested PCP by use of a cigarette. Moreover, we note that the
cigarette in Thomas was covered by white paper, which made it impossible for the officer
to know, or even suspect, that it was a marijuana cigarette. Here, the glass vial was clear,
and the contents of it were plainly visible to Officer Olvera. In other words, the evidence
established what led Officer Olvera to form his opinion that the vial contained PCP.
In sum, defendant was observed loitering in an area where he had been warned not
to loiter, he was seen participating in what appeared to be a dice gambling game, and he
was near open alcohol containers. Then, when the police approached, he ducked behind
11
his cohorts and ran away. In addition, Officer Olvera’s partner thought defendant had a
gun, and defendant failed to comply with Olvera’s commands to stop running. Thus,
Officer Olvera had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant and investigate. Furthermore,
the police were justified in searching defendant’s van. They had probable cause to
believe it contained contraband, based on Officer Olvera’s observation of a vial
containing what appeared to be liquid PCP in the door of the van. Thus, since Officer
Olvera acted in an objectively reasonable manner in stopping and detaining defendant for
investigation, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence. (See
People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 390.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
CODRINGTON J.
12
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant based on observed municipal code violations and suspicious behavior, and that the subsequent warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was supported by probable cause under the automobile exception.
Issues
Did the police have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention of the defendant?
Did the police have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle under the automobile exception?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Officer Olvera had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant and investigate.”
“The police were justified in searching defendant’s van. They had probable cause to believe it contained contraband, based on Officer Olvera’s observation of a vial containing what appeared to be liquid PCP in the door of the van.”