Claypool v. Superior Ct.

Filed 12/6/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

BRANDON JAMES CLAYPOOL, C096620 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE002384) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate and/or prohibition. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue. Kenneth N. Brody, Judge.

Amanda Benson, Public Defender, Alice Michel and Dena Stone, Assistant Public Defenders, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Renchand and Darren K. Indermill, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest. Petitioner Brandon James Claypool brought this timely petition for writ of mandate or prohibition to challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges. Petitioner is charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon, unauthorized alteration of a firearm, and carrying a loaded

1

firearm in a vehicle, along with an enhancement for a prior strike pursuant to the three strikes law. The evidence at issue was found in a locked glove box in petitioner’s car during a parole search of a back seat passenger. Petitioner, who was both the driver and owner of the car, was neither on searchable probation nor parole at the time. Police used a key to open the glove box and found a gun containing ammunition. The People argue the parole search of the back seat passenger permissibly extended to the locked glove box because officers could reasonably expect the parolee could have secreted contraband there after he became aware of the police. But, absent additional evidence, we find the facts do not support such an attenuated inference. The parolee was not independently capable of accessing the glove box. Nor did police observe anything suggesting the occupants of the car were maneuvering to get the gun from the back seat passenger into the glove box and lock it. Our conclusion is further bolstered by other relevant factors identified by our state Supreme Court, including petitioner’s own privacy interests. (See People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909 (Schmitz).) We shall issue a peremptory writ of mandate and direct respondent court to grant petitioner’s motion. BACKGROUND Petitioner initially moved to suppress the evidence at the preliminary hearing. Accordingly, the facts are taken from the evidence adduced at that hearing. Petitioner was driving a Honda Accord with two passengers, Malcolm Clay in the front passenger seat, and parolee Carlos Olivia in the rear seat on the passenger’s side. An officer testified that police first saw petitioner’s car in an area where the officer had “contacted multiple known gang members” and “personally made multiple gun arrests.” Police observed that the front seat occupants appeared to “be leaned back” when they passed the police car traveling the other way and decided to make a U-turn and follow the car. There is no evidence police saw the occupants turn toward the back seat so as to exchange or pass anything, nor any other indication of unusual interaction among the occupants. Police followed petitioner’s car as it made an abrupt turn onto a side street