People v. Stolz CA2/6

Filed 12/14/21 P. v. Stolz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B311891 (Super. Ct. No. 19F-08775) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

RYAN CRAIG STOLZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ryan Craig Stolz appeals from the judgment after pleading no contest to possession of an assault weapon (Pen. Code, § 30605, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered him to serve two years of formal probation. Stolz contends the judgment should be reversed because the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence. We agree, and reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Sergeant Matt Chesson received a report of a domestic disturbance between two people at Stolz’s residence, one of whom had been heard screaming that they needed to go to the hospital. The sergeant was also told that police had previously

responded to the residence after Stolz allegedly pointed a gun at someone. Sergeant Chesson had previously gone to the same residence in response to a reported drug overdose. Sergeant Chesson saw a truck leave Stolz’s residence as he approached. He and another officer continued to the residence as others pursued the truck. When they arrived, Sergeant Chesson knocked on the front door and rang the doorbell, but received no response. The other officer went around the exterior of the residence and saw a woman lying in a bedroom. She appeared to be breathing, but did not respond when the officer called out. While he waited at the front door, Sergeant Chesson received word that Stolz had been detained. He then went to assist his partner and the unresponsive woman. As he passed by the garage, he saw a large safe inside the garage with its door slightly ajar. He could not see into the safe, however, so he entered the garage and opened the door to the safe. Inside were various firearms and high-capacity magazines. Prosecutors charged Stolz with possession of an assault weapon and three other charges related to the contents of the safe. Stolz moved to suppress the evidence supporting these charges, arguing that the search of his safe and seizure of its contents ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. Prosecutors countered that the “combination of a life-threatening potential emergency, along with an officer safety issue” justified the search and seizure. The trial court denied Stolz’s motion. He then pled no contest to the possession of an assault weapon in exchange for dismissal of the other charges and a two-year probation term.