People v. Heinrichs CA2/6

Filed 11/17/22 P. v. Heinrichs 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B315645 (Super. Ct. No. 21F-00822) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JAMES HEINRICHS,

Defendant and Appellant.

James Heinrichs appeals from the judgment after the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop. He contends the police unconstitutionally prolonged the traffic stop beyond the time in which a reasonably diligent officer would have completed the mission of the stop. We conclude the police did not unduly prolong the stop. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 11, 2021, at approximately 9:50 a.m., Officer Christopher Siglin of the Pismo Beach Police Department observed Heinrichs’s vehicle leaving the parking lot of a motel known for “significant . . . narcotics activity.” The officer followed

Heinrichs, who was exceeding the posted speed limit. Heinrichs’s vehicle also had a malfunctioning center brake light. Siglin initiated a traffic stop based on those violations. After contacting Heinrichs, Siglin relayed Heinrichs’s driver’s license information to dispatch to “[c]heck his license status” and to check for any warrants or probation referrals. While waiting for a response, the officer observed closed containers of “Smirnoff Ice” on the front passenger seat and noted that Heinrichs’s “eyes were glassy.” After confirming Heinrichs was not intoxicated, Siglin asked him whether he was caught up on his tickets and if he had missed any court hearings. Heinrichs admitted he had been arrested in September 2020 for narcotics possession and had missed a court hearing in that matter, but reported his attorney had appeared for him. Thereafter, a dispatch officer informed Siglin that Heinrichs had no warrants or probation referrals. The trial court determined that within 45 seconds of the receipt of that information, the officer asked Heinrichs whether he had anything in the vehicle the officer should know about, such as narcotics or drug paraphernalia. Our review of Officer Siglin’s body camera video reveals a much shorter time frame. After speaking with the dispatch officer, Siglin said “10-4,” turned to Heinrichs and asked whether he had any narcotics or drug paraphernalia in his car. The inquiry took two seconds. Heinrichs immediately admitted there “might be a pipe or two in there.” After Siglin requested an assisting police unit, Heinrichs admitted he also had narcotics in the vehicle. A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed methamphetamine. An information charged Heinrichs with possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and transportation of a controlled substance (id. § 11379, subd. (a).)