People v. Contreras CA2/1

Filed 2/29/16 P. v. Contreras CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B266017

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA426801) v.

VALERIE ELEINE CONTRERAS,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Douglas W. Sortino, Judge. Affirmed. Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Phyllis C. Asayama, Roberta Schwartz, and Ruth M. Low, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Alex R. Kessel, Alex R. Kessel, and Ivy Kessel for Defendant and Respondent. __________

An information charged Valerie Eleine Contreras with possession for sale of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, which an officer discovered while searching the trunk of her car based on his suspicion that he smelled PCP. Contreras argued below that the search, which resulted in the discovery of the methamphetamine, should have been discontinued once the officer discovered an innocent source of the odor, because at that point he no longer had probable cause to believe contraband might be found. The magistrate judge denied Contreras’s suppression motion. Contreras raised the issue again before the superior court, which agreed with her, and dismissed the case. The state appealed. We agree with the superior court and affirm the dismissal. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW On July 2, 2014 at approximately 4:30 p.m., Detective Albert Rodriguez initiated a traffic stop after observing Valerie Contreras driving a vehicle with tinted windows in violation of Vehicle Code section 26708, subdivision (a)(1). When Rodriguez approached Contreras’s vehicle, he smelled a strong chemical odor, which “smelled a bit like PCP.” Rodriguez had been an officer for 32 years and had specialized training and experience in narcotics recognition, packaging and transportation. Rodriguez questioned Contreras about the odor, and Contreras explained that she had recently cleaned the interior of the car with chemicals, which were the source of the odor. Contreras was alone, did not appear to be under the influence of any substance, and, looking through the car window, he did not see any contraband inside the car. Rodriguez then asked Contreras to exit the vehicle so he could search it to “try to find the source of the smell.” Rodriguez first searched the inside of the vehicle and found no contraband. Detecting that the odor was “stronger” near the rear of the car, Rodriguez opened the trunk to search it. Inside the trunk, he saw “rags that had a strong chemical odor . . . similar to what [he] smelled outside the car.” Rodriguez then continued to “inventory the entire trunk” because he did not want to assume that the rags with the chemical odor were the “actual source” or the only source of the smell. During his continued search, Rodriguez found an individual portion-sized “Cheerios” cereal box with the top torn open. He picked up the cereal box and saw a clear plastic bag inside.