People v. Suggs

Filed 7/31/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

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

THE PEOPLE, C096555

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE008798)

v.

ANTERION DANTELAMAR SUGGS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Thadd A. Blizzard, Judge. Reversed.

Joseph M. Ahart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

Defendant Anterion Dantelamar Suggs appeals from a judgment following entry of a plea of no contest to misdemeanor possession of a concealed firearm after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence of the firearm and methamphetamine found in his vehicle. On appeal, defendant argues the detention that preceded the search of his vehicle was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. We will reverse the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2021, Sacramento Police Officer Owen Anstess saw defendant driving a car that displayed only paper plates in violation of Vehicle Code section 5200 that requires a vehicle to attach license plates to both the front and back of the vehicle. Since Officer Anstess did not see any registration or recent purchase documents displayed, he initiated a traffic stop of defendant. Officer Anstess would not have stopped the car if he had seen the paperwork displayed in the window as required by law. When Officer Anstess walked up to the vehicle to speak with defendant, he saw temporary registration documents attached to the darkly tinted rear window. Anstess testified that the display of these documents satisfied the legal requirement for vehicles with paper license plates. After seeing the temporary registration documents, Officer Anstess questioned defendant about the purchase of the vehicle, and defendant provided the out-of-state purchase paperwork. As he reviewed the paperwork, Officer Anstess asked questions about where defendant and his passenger were headed, then returned the paperwork to defendant, and asked defendant if he had identification on him. Defendant provided his driver’s license to Officer Anstess, who asked defendant for his current address, and then proceeded to ask the passenger if he had identification. Defendant’s passenger gave his driver’s license to Officer Anstess as defendant asked, “is this necessary?” Officer Anstess explained to defendant that he was pulled over for having paper plates and because he could not see the paperwork in his vehicle’s window. Officer Anstess asked if there was anything “crazy in the car [he] needed to know about,” whether defendant or his passenger were on parole or probation, and whether