People v. Marquez CA5

California Court of Appeal Oct 19, 2022 No. F083776Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances, including a confidential informant's firsthand observations corroborated by police surveillance and a subsequent drug seizure. Alternatively, the court held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officers' reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence for lack of probable cause?
Did the trial court err in concluding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied to the search?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with the trial court that the probable cause determination is “close,” but we conclude there is a substantial basis upon which to find probable cause.”

“Irrespective, even if we were to conclude the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause, we agree with the magistrate the “good faith exception” applies to merit nonexclusion of the retrieved evidence.”

Filed 10/19/22 P. v. Marquez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083776 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF180965A) v.

JIMMY MARQUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Michael G. Bush, Judge.

William Safford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Doris A. Calandra and Christopher J. Rench, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Jimmy Marquez, also known as Jimmy Lopez, pleaded no contest to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a) after the trial court denied his motion to quash a warrant and suppress evidence obtained during a search of his residence and car. On appeal, he challenges the court’s denial of his motion to quash and suppress, asserting the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, and the good faith exception did not apply to render the retrieved evidence admissible. We affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with felony violations of Health and Safety Code sections 11351 (possession of cocaine for sale), 11366 (maintaining or opening a place for selling, giving away, or using cocaine), and 11370.1, subdivision (a) (possessing a substance containing cocaine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm), and Penal Code sections 29800, subdivision (a)(1) (unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon), and 30305, subdivision (a) (unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon), and a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a) (unlawful receipt of stolen property) after contraband and drug-related paraphernalia were retrieved during a search of his residence and car on January 15, 2020. He moved to quash the warrant pursuant to which the search was conducted, and suppress the evidence obtained during the search, including suspected methamphetamine, digital scales, cellular phones, pay-and-owe sheets, firearms, ammunition, magazines, and money. He attached to his motion the warrant to search his residence and a white 2019 Acura and a probable cause statement/affidavit of Detective Carlos Arvizu submitted in support of the warrant. In the affidavit, Detective Arvizu detailed his training and experience in the police department and his expertise regarding narcotics sales. He further averred:

People v. Marquez CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief