Opinion
C083182
07-12-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KIM E. JORDAN, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 15F00424)
After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant Kim E. Jordan pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of a controlled substance for sale and unlawful transportation of a controlled substance for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11378, 11379, subd. (a).) The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for five years with various terms and conditions, including that defendant serve five years in jail with a recommendation of the sheriff's work project.
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion by applying the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, because the police officer lacked probable cause to believe defendant's vehicle contained contraband. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
A Sacramento police officer was patrolling an area he had worked for over a year and where he had made numerous arrests and contacts. It was a high crime area, known for narcotics use and sales. He was a 12-year veteran and had completed training on narcotics identification.
The officer drove into a motel parking lot and saw defendant knocking on the door of one of the rooms. A red 1997 Geo Metro was parked in front. The officer knew that the Geo is easy to steal due to its ignition system. He ran a license plate check and found the Geo registered to a woman whose address was half a mile from the motel.
After knocking on the door with no answer, defendant walked to the Geo, sat in the driver seat and left the car door open. The officer parked his patrol car behind the Geo, making it difficult but not impossible for the Geo to drive away, and approached defendant. Upon approaching defendant, the officer noticed a clear plastic baggie shoved into the driver's side door pocket. The baggie was balled up and the part showing was twisted and tied. Although he could not see inside the bag, the officer knew that such baggies are used to transport or store methamphetamine.
The officer asked defendant about the owner of the Geo and asked defendant if he had a license. Defendant showed the officer identification but said he did not have a valid license and added that he may have an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officer ran a record check and found an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for defendant.
Defendant said he was there to see "Pig Pen." The officer was aware of Pig Pen as a narcotics user on probation. The officer arrested defendant on the warrant. He then seized the baggie, which contained 41 grams of methamphetamine.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, explaining that an officer may search an automobile if there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence. The trial court said the totality of the facts established probable cause. The trial court noted the officer's experience and training in recognizing drugs, the high crime location, the baggie's condition (balled up, twisted, and tied off), and the fact that defendant was there to see a person known to the officer as a narcotics user.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion by applying the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, because the police officer lacked probable cause to believe the baggie contained contraband.
Citing People v. Limon (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 524, 537, defendant argues the presence of a common container is not enough to establish probable cause. According to defendant, he was not stopped or arrested for a drug offense, the officer had no prior knowledge of defendant having any drug involvement, the officer did not smell drugs, and defendant did not appear to be under the influence of drugs. Defendant claims the officer had at most a "strong hunch" or reasonable suspicion. We disagree.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, when supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952, 979.) But we independently determine, on the facts found, whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. (Ibid.)
A police officer may search an automobile and containers inside the automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is inside. (California v. Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565, 580 [114 L.Ed.2d 619, 634].) Probable cause merely requires that the facts available to the officer would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime; it does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. (Texas v. Brown (1983) 460 U.S. 730, 742 [75 L.Ed.2d 502, 514]; see People v. Gallegos (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 612, 623.) "A 'practical, nontechnical' probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required." (Ibid.)
Here, the totality of circumstances gave rise to probable cause to believe the baggie contained contraband. Even if the baggie alone was insufficient, numerous additional factors were present here. (See People v. Nonnette (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 659, 667 [" 'whether a common container constitutes a suspicious circumstance, capable of contributing to the totality of circumstances necessary for probable cause, depends on the total factual context in which the container is observed, including the prior experience of the observing officer with containers of the sort at issue' "].)
The officer was a 12-year veteran with training on narcotics identification and familiarity with the area. Defendant was found in a high crime area known for drug sales and use. (See People v. Nonnette, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 668 ["The fact that a detention occurs in a high crime area may contribute to probable cause if it is relevant to the officer's belief that the suspect is involved in criminal activity."].) The baggie was balled and twist tied, which the officer recognized as typical for methamphetamine packaging. And defendant told the officer he was there to see "Pig Pen," who the officer recognized as a known narcotics user.
The totality of the circumstances gave rise to probable cause. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
DUARTE, J.