P. v. Cosovich CA5

California Court of Appeal May 6, 2013 No. F064317Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his claim that a probation search was arbitrary by failing to raise it in the trial court, and that even if considered, the search was supported by legitimate law enforcement purposes.

Issues

Whether a defendant may raise a claim of an arbitrary probation search for the first time on appeal after failing to challenge it in the trial court.
Whether a warrantless, suspicionless probation search is constitutionally unreasonable if the officer does not explicitly articulate a motive for the search.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“appellant did not raise this claim below and is therefore precluded from raising it on appeal.”

“None of the cases appellant cites supports the proposition that law enforcement personnel must articulate the reason(s) for a search, nor has our research uncovered any authority for such a proposition.”

Filed 5/6/13 P. v. Cosovich CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, F064317

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF33134)

STEVEN RALPH COSOVICH, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. Eleanor Provost, Judge. Allison H. Ting, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Wanda Hill Rouzan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J., and Gomes, J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code,1 § 1538.5), appellant, Steven Ralph Cosovich, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court imposed a prison term of four years eight months. On appeal, appellant‟s sole contention is that the court erred in denying the suppression motion. We affirm. FACTS2 At approximately 10:23 p.m. on August 7, 2010, Tuolumne County Deputy Sheriff Alejandro Rivera was driving northbound on Fifth Avenue in Jamestown when he saw a car traveling southbound on the same street.3 As he looked in his side mirror, he saw that the car appeared to have no rear license plate, so he made a U-turn and “got behind the vehicle.” At that point, Rivera saw that the car had a rear license plate. However, he was unable to read it because it was faded and one of the license plate lights was not working. The car drove into a store parking lot, and Rivera followed in his patrol vehicle. As the car came to a stop, Rivera stopped right behind it and “activated [his] lights.” Rivera made contact with the vehicle‟s two occupants—appellant, who was driving, and Morgan Carruth, the passenger—and each, upon the deputy‟s request, provided

P. v. Cosovich CA5

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

STEVEN RALPH COSOVICH, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief