People v. Ford CA3

California Court of Appeal Sep 8, 2016 No. C080280Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room after vacating it, rendering the subsequent warrantless search lawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence based on the defendant's lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vacated motel room?
Did the defendant forfeit the argument that the abandonment doctrine is inapplicable due to an alleged illegal detention by failing to raise it in the trial court?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that defendant had no expectation of privacy in the vacated motel room and any belongings left behind.”

“By leaving the room with the handgun inside, defendant relinquished his interest in the property such that he no longer retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in it at the time of the search.”

“Defendant has forfeited this argument because he did not raise it below.”

Filed 9/8/16 P. v. Ford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C080280

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F08012)

MARKIMHASSON KUINTEZ FORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5,1 defendant Markimhasson Kuintez Ford pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm. (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted the allegation that he had committed a prior serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c).) The trial court sentenced defendant to two years eight months in prison.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

On appeal defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We conclude the trial court did not err, and therefore affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND The facts are taken from the evidence presented at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress. A. Prosecution Case At around 6:00 p.m. on November 30, 2014, Sacramento police officers Christopher Clatterbuck and Tony Yager were dispatched to the Motel 6 on 30th Street in Sacramento in response to a report of possible prostitution solicitation activity occurring in room 241.2 The caller reported that there were two adult black males soliciting a girl for prostitution. Officer Clatterbuck was very familiar with this motel, which he described as an active community policing location with lots of narcotics and prostitution-related calls and arrests. He explained that the motel was his “project,” and that he was there on a daily basis conducting enforcement activities, responding to calls for service, making contacts with people, and performing probation and parole searches. On prior occasions, Officer Clatterbuck had assisted the motel owner in evicting tenants for prostitution- related activity. In such instances, the owners of the motel would ask the tenant to leave the property, typically with police officers standing by to facilitate the eviction. After an eviction, the tenant no longer had a right to be in the motel room. Upon arriving at the motel, Officer Clatterbuck learned from management that Stephanie McGuire had rented room 241. Before Officer Clatterbuck went to McGuire’s room, Officer Yager told him that he had seen a black male and a white

People v. Ford CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C080280

MARKIMHASSON KUINTEZ FORD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

RENNER, J.

HOCH, J.

AI Brief