People v. Miles CA5

Filed 6/23/15 P. v. Miles 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068177 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F12909239) v.

ROBERT FITZGERALD MILES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge. Gabriel C. Vivas, 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, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

After denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a parole search, defendant Robert Fitzgerald Miles was convicted by jury trial of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the parole search was not random, but arbitrary and capricious. We disagree and affirm. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2012, at about 8:30 p.m., Officer Logue was on duty with his partner, Officer Kraft. They were doing a parole compliance check at the Parkland Hotel in Fresno. The hotel was commonly used to house parolees and it was in a high crime area. In preparation for the compliance check, the officers checked the parole database for parolees living at the Parkland Hotel. Multiple parolees came up and the officers randomly picked defendant. Then they checked another system and confirmed that he was on active parole. They also learned that he was being monitored by a GPS ankle monitor. The officers went to the hotel and contacted the clerk. They verified that defendant was leasing a particular room. Officer Logue testified that he did not have defendant under surveillance before the search, nor was he aware that defendant had broken any rules. He did not conduct parole searches of defendant on a daily basis. In fact, he did not recall ever contacting defendant before. This was a random parole search. Officer Kraft had conducted other parole searches at the hotel and had found parolees committing crimes. He believed approximately 75 parolees lived at the hotel at the time the officers searched defendant. Officer Kraft had never contacted defendant before. There was nothing in particular about defendant’s name that caused the officers to investigate him further. They did not focus on defendant for any particular reason. When they approached his room, they saw him in the presence of two other people. They did not see him engaging in criminal activity. The officers were simply conducting a parole compliance check.