People v. Pollard CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 2015 No. F068156Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's detention and subsequent patsearch were lawful based on officer safety concerns, and that the trial court properly conducted an in camera review of officer personnel records.

Issues

Was the defendant's detention by probation officers lawful?
Was the patsearch of the defendant supported by reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous?
Did the trial court fail to disclose relevant Pitchess material from the officer's personnel file?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Given the legitimate government interests involved in detaining defendant, and the minimal nature of the intrusion prior to defendant’s attempts to resist, we conclude the trial court did not err by finding defendant’s detention to be lawful.”

“we find a reasonable officer would believe his or her safety was in danger. Accordingly, the officer could properly conduct a protective search for weapons.”

“Having examined the sealed record, we conclude that the trial court reviewed the files in their entirety and adequately stated the contents of those files for the record. We also conclude the file contained no relevant Pitchess material.”

Filed 10/20/15 P. v. Pollard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F068156 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. BF148477A & v. BF149122A)

BRYON POLLARD, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Tutti Hacking, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Peter H. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

INTRODUCTION On September 6, 2013, defendant Bryon Pollard entered a plea of no contest to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and one count of possession of stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)).1 Pursuant to the plea, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of three years eight months. On appeal, defendant (1) argues he was unlawfully detained prior to the search that yielded the evidence against him, (2) argues the patsearch that yielded the evidence was unreasonable, and (3) asks that we review the sealed transcripts of the trial court’s in camera review of the personnel records of the officer who searched defendant to determine if all relevant Pitchess2 material was disclosed. We find no error, and affirm the judgment in all respects. FACTS On May 1, 2013, Probation Officers Shawna Lynn and Matthew Gomez, as well as two other probation officers, went to the listed address of probationer Chad Patterson, whom the officers intended to arrest for failure to report. After parking outside the residence, Lynn observed defendant standing at the end of the driveway. As Lynn approached the house, defendant quickly headed towards the front door of the residence while making furtive motions with his hands in the area of his waistband. Lynn asked defendant to stop and show his hands, but he continued to walk towards the house. Lynn again ordered defendant to stop, and defendant complied. Lynn then turned defendant over to Gomez and went inside to search the house for Patterson. While Lynn was inside the residence, Gomez, who had also witnessed defendant’s furtive movements and was unsure if defendant was armed, conducted a patsearch of

People v. Pollard CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief