People v. Raoult CA2/6

Filed 6/23/15 P. v. Raoult CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B256148 (Super. Ct. No. 2012004512) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JEREMY EVAN RAOULT,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a police officer arrested Jeremy Evan Raoult for possessing methamphetamine, he searched the passenger compartment of Raoult's car and found incriminating videos in a camera's digital storage. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court decided that officers may not search a cell phone's digital storage incident to lawful arrest. (Riley v. California (2014) __ U.S.__ [134 S.Ct. 2473, 2495] (Riley).) We conclude that Riley does not extend to the digital camera on this record, and, even if it did, the officer acted in good faith reliance on existing authority. Raoult appeals from an order denying his motion to suppress and the judgment that followed his conviction by jury of three counts of committing lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1))1; one count of possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377); and one count of failing to appear on bond (§ 1320.5). We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2012, Raoult was on probation following a conviction for possessing narcotics. As a term of his probation, Raoult consented to warrantless searches of his person and property "for controlled substances including marijuana and related paraphernalia . . . ."2 Ventura City Police Officer Arthur Gonzales stopped Raoult's car because the rear license plate was not illuminated. When Gonzales checked Raoult's records, he learned that Raoult was wanted and subject to the controlled substance probation search term. Gonzales arrested Raoult. The parties agree that the detention and arrest were lawful. Raoult complied with Gonzales's instructions to get out of the car. After Gonzales handcuffed Raoult, Raoult told Gonzales that he "had dope on him." Gonzales found baggies that held about 10 grams of methamphetamine in Raoult's pocket. Gonzales searched Raoult's car and found a backpack with a camera inside. He searched through the camera's digital storage and found three videos of Raoult's 15- year-old female passenger performing sexual acts. Gonzales also searched Raoult's cell phone, but found nothing incriminating. In July 2013, Raoult moved to suppress evidence found in his "Nikon Coolpix Camera" and in his cell phone. (§ 1538.5.) The trial court heard the motion to suppress in December 2013, about six months before the United States Supreme Court decided Riley, supra, __ U.S.__ [134 S.Ct. 2473]. Gonzales testified that, in his experience, it is common for drug users and dealers to have photographs of drugs and drug paraphernalia. He knew Raoult was