People v. Tacardon CA3

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. Tacardon CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C087681

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FER- 2018-0003729) v. OPINION ON TRANSFER LEON WILLIAM TACARDON,

Defendant and Respondent.

Defendant Leon William Tacardon was charged with possession of a controlled substance for sale and misdemeanor possession of marijuana for sale. Evidence of these crimes was seized following an interaction with San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb. In our prior opinion, we concluded that defendant was not detained by Deputy Grubb when Grubb detained a female passenger, who jumped out of the car defendant was in as the deputy approached. Rather, defendant was detained when Grubb smelled

1

marijuana smoke, observed drugs in the car, and told defendant to remain in the car while the deputy conducted a records check. At that point, we held there was no doubt the deputy possessed a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. (People v. Tacardon (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 89, 100-101 (Tacardon I).) Accordingly, we reversed the trial court’s order setting aside the magistrate’s ruling denying defendant’s suppression motion. (Id. at p. 101.) The California Supreme Court granted review to examine the significance of the deputy’s use of a spotlight. The court concluded that “shining a spotlight for illumination does not ipso facto constitute a detention under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v. Tacardon (2022) 14 Cal.5th 235, 238 (Tacardon II).) Rather, the inquiry whether a defendant was detained requires consideration of the totality of the circumstances, including the spotlight use. (Ibid.) The court reversed the judgment. (Id. at p. 256.) However, the court determined that the critical question was whether defendant was aware of the deputy’s direction to the female passenger to stand on the sidewalk, an issue the magistrate’s ruling on the motion to suppress failed to consider. (Tacardon II, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 254-255.) As the record supports conflicting inferences on this issue, the court remanded the case for a new factual finding regarding whether defendant was aware of the woman’s detention and then to assess whether defendant was detained under the totality of the circumstances. (Id. at p. 256.) Accordingly, we will in turn remand to the superior court for this purpose. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We state the facts as set forth in the California Supreme Court’s opinion. “Sheriff’s Deputy Joel Grubb testified to the following facts at the preliminary hearing, where defendant Leon William Tacardon first moved to suppress evidence. “On a March evening, around 8:45 p.m., in a residential Stockton neighborhood, Grubb was on patrol in a marked car. The area was known for narcotics sales and weapons possession. While patrolling, Grubb had both his headlights and high beams on