People v. Dibble CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 2016 No. F069344Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the traffic stop was lawful because the officer had an objective basis to believe the defendant violated Vehicle Code section 22107 by failing to signal before turning, which affected the officer's operation of his patrol vehicle.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.
Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant for failing to signal before turning in violation of Vehicle Code section 22107.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since each of Dibble’s turns without signaling affected Sergeant Dampier’s operation of his patrol car, Sergeant Dampier had an objective basis for concluding Dibble violated section 22107 each time he turned without signaling.”

“we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Dibble’s motion to suppress.”

Filed 2/18/16 P. v. Dibble 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069344 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RF006787A) v.

AARON MICHAEL DIBBLE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush and Colette M. Humphrey, Judges.† Jesse Whitten for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Rebecca Whitfield, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Smith, J. † Judge Bush presided over appellant’s motion to suppress. Judge Humphrey sentenced appellant.

Appellant Aaron Michael Dibble pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and admitted allegations that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). On appeal, Dibble challenges the trial court’s denial of his suppression motion. We affirm. FACTS On September 10, 2013, Dibble was driving a car in Ridgecrest, California with a child in a car seat in the rear when he was stopped by Ridgecrest Police Sergeant Justin Dampier. Sergeant Dampier noticed that Dibble was exhibiting symptoms of being under the influence of a stimulant. He searched Dibble’s car and found the plunger of a hypodermic needle syringe and a bent metal spoon. A second officer searched Dibble and found the cap to a syringe. Dibble was arrested and transported to the police station. When Dibble removed his shoes and socks at the station, a small black bag containing 0.3 grams of methamphetamine fell out of one of his socks. On November 13, 2013, the district attorney filed an information charging Dibble with bringing a controlled substance into the jail (count 1/Pen. Code, § 4573), transportation of methamphetamine (count 2/Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)), being under the influence of methamphetamine (count 3/Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor endangering a child (count 4/Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)). The information also alleged a prior prison term enhancement (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and that Dibble had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law. Around December 26, 2013, Dibble filed a motion to suppress that, in pertinent part, challenged his detention. On January 27, 2014, after a hearing, the court denied the motion.

People v. Dibble CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief