People v. Zibray CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 2021 No. F079192Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the detention of the defendant during the execution of a narcotics search warrant was reasonable in duration and scope, as it was supported by the government's interest in officer safety and the investigation of criminal activity occurring at the site.

Issues

Whether the duration of the defendant's detention during the execution of a search warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the detention was unjustified due to a lack of individualized suspicion of criminal activity.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The deputies were justified in detaining defendant for the period of time required to protect the deputies and to determine defendant’s relationship to the property.”

“Deputies did not prolong defendant’s detention for a purpose unrelated to the warranted search.”

“we cannot say the duration or manner of the detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

Filed 2/4/21 P. v. Zibray 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F079192 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF168687B) v.

ERNESTO ZIBRAY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Judith K. Dulcich, Judge. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Christoffersen and Edrina Nazaradeh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Ernesto Zibray was convicted of nine drug and firearm offenses. He contends on appeal that the search that led to the discovery of the drugs and firearms was unlawful because it was unreasonable in duration. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On November 27, 2017,1 the Kern County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant2 with possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 1), possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; count 2), possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 3), possession of cocaine while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1; count 4), unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1);3 counts 6 through 9), possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350; count 11), and possession of a gaff (§ 597i; count 12). As to counts 1 through 3, the information further alleged drug quantity enhancements (§§ 1203.07, subd. (a)(1), 1203.073, subd. (b)(1)) and alleged defendant was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (c)). On December 11, defendant moved, pursuant to section 1538.5, to suppress the evidence obtained when he was detained and searched on the date of his arrest. On January 19, 2018, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress. On July 23, 2018, defendant renewed the motion to suppress based on People v. Gutierrez (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146 (Gutierrez). On September 18, 2018, the trial court denied the renewed motion to suppress.

People v. Zibray CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief