People v. Sims CA3

Filed 5/20/16 P. v. Sims CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C079546

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F03728)

v.

WALTER EARL SIMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Despite inconsistencies between an arresting officer’s police report, the in-car camera audio, and his testimony at the hearing on defendant Walter Earl Sims’s motion to suppress, the trial court found credible the officer’s testimony that defendant gave a general consent to search his house, which included a locked safe, and denied the motion. We must defer to the trial court’s findings of fact where, as here, they are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 563.) We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the Penal Code section 1538.5 motion to suppress the evidence of drugs and weapons seized during a search of defendant’s house.

1

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AT THE SECTION 1538.5 HEARING Sergeant Michael Lange testified over two days at the Penal Code section 1538.5 hearing, and his testimony formed the basis of the trial court’s ruling. He testified that he and several other officers from the Sacramento Police Department, aware of an outstanding felony arrest warrant for defendant, parked outside of his home and watched. He intended to obtain defendant’s consent for a search of the house. He knocked on the door and identified defendant as an occupant. Defendant’s girlfriend opened the door and defendant was arrested without incident. While walking to the police car parked 75 to 100 yards down the street, Officer Lange asked defendant if he had anything illegal in the house. When defendant responded that he did not, Officer Lange asked him if he minded if he searched the house. Defendant replied, “Go ahead.” He was handcuffed and put in the patrol car. An audiotape recorded their conversation in the car. As the tape begins, defendant is asking the officer to retrieve his cell phone from his bedroom. In the meantime, another officer obtained the girlfriend’s consent to perform a protective sweep of the house. In the southeast bedroom, Sergeant Lange found “evidence of marijuana” and “four .45-caliber rounds of live ammunition, as well as some other jars and packaging for marijuana type residue and sales.” Other officers found ammunition in the garage. Lange found a locked safe in the bedroom closet, partially covered with a blanket or jacket. As he walked back into the living room, he observed keys on top of the girlfriend’s open purse. She denied the keys were hers and did not consent to a search of the safe. One of the keys appeared to be a key to the safe. Another officer determined that two of the other keys fit defendant’s cars. Satisfied that the keys belonged to defendant, Officer Lange opened the safe and observed a Colt style M-16 assault rifle, handgun, large amount of money, and packaging that appeared to contain methamphetamine. He returned to the patrol car and asked defendant if the safe was his. He could not remember if defendant claimed the safe