People v. Niccoli CA5

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 2016 No. F070948Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the officers acted in good faith reliance on erroneous dispatch information regarding the defendant's postrelease community supervision status, and the detention was not unduly prolonged.

Issues

Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies when officers rely on erroneous records regarding a defendant's supervision status.
Whether the duration of the traffic stop and subsequent detention was constitutionally unreasonable.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court made an explicit finding that the deputies acted in good faith when they searched Niccoli’s residence.”

“Where official action is pursued in good faith, but there is later found to be a defect in a warrant or other basis for a search, the evidence seized as a result of the search is not excluded.”

“The detention was not unduly prolonged under the circumstances; rather the length of the detention was extended by the officers’ good faith belief that Niccoli was subject to PRCS search terms”

Filed 3/17/16 P. v. Niccoli 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F070948 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MF011327A) v.

BRYAN VICTOR NICCOLI, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Thomas S. Clark, Judge. Paul Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, R. Todd Marshall and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Bryan Victor Niccoli pled no contest to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of Penal Code1 section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). In his appeal, Niccoli contends the trial court erroneously denied his suppression motion. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Around 7:30 p.m. on July 30, 2014, Kern County Sheriff’s deputies were on patrol near Mojave when they noticed an individual, later determined to be Niccoli, riding a motorcycle without a helmet. A records check came back with the information that Niccoli was on postrelease community supervision (PRCS). Police used Niccoli’s status as grounds to search his residence, where they uncovered evidence that formed the basis of the charges filed against Niccoli. In an information filed August 25, 2014, Niccoli was charged in count 1 with theft of a firearm, a violation of section 487, subdivision (d)(2); in count 2, with being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, a violation of section 29800, subdivision (a)(1); in count 3, with being a felon in possession of ammunition, a violation of section 30305, subdivision (a)(1); in count 4 with receiving stolen property, a violation of section 496, subdivision (a); and in count 5 with possession of narcotics paraphernalia, a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364.1. It was alleged that Niccoli had served two prior prison terms as set forth in section 667.5, subdivision (b). Niccoli pled not guilty and denied the prior prison term allegations. Niccoli filed a motion to suppress evidence on October 30, 2014, asserting the police did not have a reasonable suspicion on which to detain him and the detention was unduly prolonged. The People filed opposition to the motion on November 17, 2014.

People v. Niccoli CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief