People v. Renz CA1/1

Filed 9/30/16 P. v. Renz CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A145311 v. ERIC MICHAEL RENZ, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC080705) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Eric Michael Renz appeals from a judgment of conviction following a bench trial of one count of felony possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.1, subd. (a)).1 He raises a single issue on appeal—that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence recovered from his cell phone, which was searched subsequent to his arrest and without a warrant, and evidence recovered from his laptop, which was searched pursuant to a warrant based on the evidence recovered from the cell phone. We conclude the police acted in good-faith reliance on then binding California Supreme Court authority and, thus, the exclusionary rule does not apply here. We therefore affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2013, defendant was arrested in his Millbrae home. San Mateo Police Officers Stephen Bennett and Shannon Hagan seized defendant’s cell phone at the time

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

of his arrest and examined it later the same day according to “standard procedure.” His cell phone contained sexually explicit material, including videos of defendant masturbating and performing sex acts with an adult female, and videos and photographs of children playing at an after-school program where defendant worked. Subsequently, Officer Bennett obtained a search warrant for defendant’s residence, which was executed in November. Officer Hagan forensically examined a laptop found in his bedroom. The laptop contained several images of underage girls performing various sexual acts. In December, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed a felony complaint charging defendant with two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct against a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 1–2) and one count of possession of child pornography (§ 311.1, subd. (a); count 3). Following a preliminary hearing, defendant was held to answer on count 3. In April 2014, the district attorney filed an information identical to the December 4 complaint. The trial court later granted a section 995 motion and dismissed counts 1 and 2. In the meantime, defendant moved to suppress “all tangible and intangible evidence seized by law enforcement on October 25, 2013,” including “the contents of Mr. Renz’s cellular phone as well as the fruits of the search that occurred on November 12, 2013.” (See § 1538.5.) The trial court denied his motion in September 2014. The following month, the prosecution filed a new complaint charging defendant with two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct against a child under the age of 14, and defendant was held to answer on these charges. The trial court subsequently consolidated the two cases. After waiving his right to a jury trial, a four-day bench trial was held beginning on March 5. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal (§ 1118), and on March 9 the trial court granted the motion as to counts 1 and 2 and found defendant guilty as to count 3.