People v. Campuzano

Filed 6/5/15

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO APPELLATE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE, Appellate Division No.: CA256406

Plaintiff and Respondent, Trial Court Case No.: M178993 Trial Court Location: Central Division v. County Courthouse

FELIPE CAMPUZANO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Factual and Procedural Background Subsequent to this court initially reversing the trial court on the basis that a mistake of law could not support a reasonably suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, the United State Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina (2014) __ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 530 held that an objectively reasonable mistake of law can give rise to a reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. On January 1, 2015, the Court of Appeal remanded this matter “with directions to vacate [this court’s] opinion and judgment filed November 6, 2014, and to reconsider the matter in light of Heien v. North Carolina (2014) __ U.S. __, [2014 WL 7010684].” On January 7, 2015, the Appellate Division issued an Order requesting supplemental briefing, and thereafter set the matter for rehearing on May 14, 2015. We now affirm the trial court.

On December 17, 2013, at approximately 9:30 p.m., the defendant was straddling his bicycle and operating it at a “very slow, walking speed” alongside of a female companion who was walking. The couple was traveling eastbound along the 3800 block of University Avenue near the corner of 39th Street when they were first observed by police officers. Two officers, Adam George and Patrick Kelly, contacted and detained the defendant just before the traffic light at the intersection of 39th Street and University Avenue because he was “riding on a bicycle in a business district” in violation of San Diego Municipal Code subdivision (a) of section 84.09.1 Officer Kelly told the defendant the reason for the stop; the defendant was agitated, confrontational and belligerent. He did not follow the officer’s instructions and did not seem to understand the reason for the stop. Officer George suspected the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance due to his behavior, inability to focus on the conversation, rapid speech, and failure to understand what was going on. The officer testified that he handcuffed defendant because he was uncooperative and potentially armed. While the defendant was handcuffed, the officer attempted to speak with him. The officer had the defendant get off the bike and sit on the bumper of the patrol car while a third officer conducted a records check. Officer George told the defendant he was stopped for the infraction, but the defendant thought he was being stopped for a probation check. Defendant denied being on probation or parole, but admitted that he used narcotics several years before. By this time, Officer George had observed several objective symptoms that indicated to him that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance so he decided to conduct a drug evaluation. These objective symptoms included body tremors, speaking rapidly, being disoriented, occasional incoherence, and an inability to focus on the conversation.