People v. Melchoir CA1/5

Filed 2/29/16 P. v. Melchoir CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144949 v. SVEND MELCHOIR, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 2471053) Defendant and Appellant.

The People charged Svend Melchoir with several crimes, including driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and driving with a defective windshield (Veh. Code, § 26710)) and he moved to suppress (Pen. Code, § 1138.5). The trial court granted the motion, concluding the prosecution failed to justify the warrantless traffic stop because the detaining police officer did not testify. The appellate division of the San Francisco Superior Court reversed, concluding the prosecution could rely on the “‘collective knowledge’” rule to justify the detention. We granted Melchoir’s petition to transfer (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1005) and we now reverse. Like the trial court, we conclude the prosecution failed to offer admissible evidence justifying the detention. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People charged Melchoir with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)), driving while unlicensed (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)), and driving with a defective windshield (Veh. Code, § 26710).

1

Melchoir’s Motion to Suppress Melchoir moved to suppress, claiming he was detained without reasonable suspicion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). The trial court limited the scope of the suppression hearing to the detention and San Francisco Police Officer Steven Landi testified to the following: In May 2012, Officer Landi was on duty and having dinner at a restaurant when he looked out the window and saw a black Monte Carlo sedan pull “up [to] the southeast curb of Larkin and Post followed by an unmarked police car.” Several uniformed police officers got out of the police car. “It looked like a traffic stop[.]” Officer Landi watched the traffic stop for a few minutes and noticed the driver — later identified as Melchoir — had “droopy eyelids” and was “moving about in his seat, twitching back and forth[.]” Officer Landi thought Melchoir might be “impaired.” Officer Landi left the restaurant and crossed the street; at that point, the car’s occupants “were out of the vehicle.” San Francisco Police Officer Aloise told Officer Landi “he stopped the car for a broken windshield.”1 Officer Landi noticed the Monte Carlo’s windshield had a “‘pronounced’” and “[v]isible” horizontal crack. Then Officer Landi spoke to Melchoir, who was “fidgeting” and “perspiring despite the fact that it was relatively cool out. His speech was very rapid and mumbled.” When Officer Landi asked Melchoir whether he was on medication or had taken drugs, Melchoir denied taking drugs and claimed he was tired. Officer Landi arrested Melchoir. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel argued the prosecution failed to establish reasonable suspicion for the detention because Officer Aloise did not testify. The prosecutor argued Officer Aloise’s statement to Officer Landi about the cracked windshield was “not admitted for its truth[.]” Instead he urged “the fact that Officer Landi observed the stop and saw the basis for the stop with his own eyes, that would give