People v. Ibarra CA2/6

Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Ibarra CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B320100 (Super. Ct. No. VA155929) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANTHONY IBARRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Ibarra appeals a judgment following his no contest plea to possession for sale of a controlled substance, heroin (Health. & Saf. Code, § 11351), a felony, after the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for two years. We conclude, among other things, that 1) the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress evidence; but 2) in conducting an in camera review of police personnel records in response to Ibarra’s Pitchess motion (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Pen. Code, § 832.7; Evid. Code, § 1043 et

seq.), the court did not disclose to the defense a relevant complaint against the officer. We conditionally reverse the judgment and remand with instructions. FACTS On January 6, 2021, Sheriff Deputy Alex Hernandez and his partner John Balarosan were on duty near a hotel. They saw Ibarra immediately walk away from a hotel room after he looked in their direction. Ibarra then threw an item away. The officers searched that area for that item and found a “bindle” containing a white substance resembling methamphetamine. The officers detained Ibarra and asked his permission to search his hotel room. Ibarra agreed and he signed a search entry waiver form. With his consent, the officers searched Ibarra’s hotel room. They discovered illegal controlled substances in his room. Ibarra filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search. He claimed the officers searched the room without his consent. He claimed the signature on the consent to search form was not his. The trial court denied the suppression motion finding the People had met their burden to show a lawful search. Ibarra filed a Pitchess motion. The trial court found the defense had established good cause to review the officers’ personnel records. After conducting an in camera review, the court released some records for review by the defense. DISCUSSION The Motion to Suppress Evidence Ibarra contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) He claims the evidence shows the police conducted a search without his consent.