Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Leslie Flynn, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Super. Ct. No. DL026085
Dacia A. Burz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SILLS, P. J.
Kelly H., a minor, admitted to three counts of receiving stolen property and one count of grand theft following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. She challenges the denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized from her bedroom, arguing the detectives’ use of a ruse to obtain her mother’s consent to search rendered her mother’s consent involuntary and invalidated the search. We conclude the search is valid, having found no evidence the detectives used a ruse or any other form of trickery to obtain her mother’s consent to search. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress and the judgment.
I
FACTS
An investigation into a pair of stolen Chanel sunglasses led Santa Ana Police Detectives Michelle Miller and Montiel to contact Kelly at Corona Del Mar High School on June 6, 2006. When the detectives interviewed Kelly about the theft, she denied taking the sunglasses. She claimed her boyfriend took the sunglasses and gave them to her. The detectives’ search of Kelly’s backpack proved unfruitful. Kelly told the detectives, “Go ahead and search my room. Search whatever you want. I don’t have them anymore. ”
Miller and Montiel decided to go to Kelly’s residence on Balboa Island. When they knocked on the residence’s front door, Kelly’s mother, Kristy H., identified herself and asked, “Can I help.” Miller testified that Kristy looked like she had just returned home after a jog or a walk. The detectives explained to Kristy that they had come to her home to investigate a grand theft, and that they wanted to search Kelly’s bedroom. The detectives suggested going inside the house so that they could discuss the matter in private, and Kristy permitted them to enter her home.
Once inside, the detectives explained that they had gone to Kelly’s school and talked to her about a pair of stolen sunglasses. They told Kristy they had already searched Kelly’s backpack and told them to search her room. They showed Kristy pictures of Kelly wearing the sunglasses, pictures the officers said they had downloaded from an internet site. Kristy told the detectives that she thought Kelly had saved money to purchase the sunglasses. Miller told Kristy that Kelly had told someone else that the glasses were a gift from her mother.
Miller also warned Kristy that Kelly may be using methamphetamine. Miller explained that she had experience with kids on drugs, and that she had seen some of the warning signs in Kelly. Miller pointed to Kelly’s seemingly low body weight, her heightened emotional state, some signs of gross disorganization, and the fact that Kelly seemed to have difficulty following conversations. Miller asked Kristy if they could search Kelly’s bedroom. Kristy hesitated, but she decided to consent to the search and showed the detectives to Kelly’s room. Kristy later testified she hesitated because she was afraid the detectives would arrest her if they found drugs in Kelly’s room. She also said that she did not really feel comfortable allowing the officers to search Kelly’s room, but that she changed her mind when the officers mentioned that Kelly had already given them her permission.
The detectives found wallets, Disneyland passes, library cards and three identification cards. None of these items belonged to Kelly, and one of the identification cards was in the name of the rightful owner of the stolen sunglasses. After the officers showed these items to Kristy, she told them to stop searching. The detectives complied with her request, but confiscated the property they had already found in Kelly’s room. They left the home a short time later, but returned after Kelly came home.
On November 21, 2006, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition, alleging Kelly committed three counts of misdemeanor receiving stolen property and one count of misdemeanor grand theft. Kelly filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. The juvenile court denied the motion after a hearing, concluding that the search was justified by valid consent. On January 24, Kelly pled guilty to all four counts and was placed on formal probation. She filed a timely notice of appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
Kelly challenges the trial court’s ruling on her motion to suppress evidence. “‘The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 384.) Because Kristy had the authority to consent to the search of Kelly’s room (see People v. Oldham (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1, 9), her consent, if voluntary, is sufficient to uphold the search. (Ibid.) After reviewing the trial court’s ruling under the applicable standards, we conclude the trial court’s ruling is correct.
Kelly contends the detectives used trickery or a ruse to gain consent to search her bedroom. At the hearing, Kristy claimed that the detective’s concern about Kelly’s drug use changed her mind about letting them search. However, the trial court discounted some of what Kristy said because she seemed more concerned for herself than her daughter at the time. Furthermore, as the trial court noted, the officers may have in fact been concerned about Kelly’s possible drug issues and did not merely mention the subject as a way to gain Kristy’ consent. Miller testified that she told Kristy the reasons for coming to her home was to investigate a pair of stolen sunglasses, and that they wanted to search Kelly’s room for the glasses. They explained to Kristy that Kelly had already admitted possessing the glasses, but that she did not have them in her backpack and told the detectives to go ahead and search her room. The conversation progressed to the detective’s concern that Kelly may also be involved with drugs. Miller testified that, based on her experience, Kelly exhibited some behaviors consistent with methamphetamine use and addiction.
As the court noted, Kristy appeared to be overly self-concerned. She was agitated that the detectives had interrupted her daily routine and worried that she would be arrested if the officers found drugs in Kelly’s room. To the extent she understood something the detectives said as a ruse to obtain her consent, it could very well be her own emotional state caused the confusion. The court stated, “I don’t think that the police tricked mother into giving consent. I don’t think they used any ruses or any subterfuge to get into the home. They told her exactly why they were there. They were there to search and they were there to discuss this theft that had taken place. And while mother might have regrets about not standing her ground. The bottom line is she did give consent.”
Kelly argues “‘an entry obtained by trickery, stealth or subterfuge renders a search and seizure invalid.’” (People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2d 268, 273.) However, as stated by the California Supreme Court, “[c]ases holding invalid consent to entry obtained by ruse or trick all involve some positive act of misrepresentation on the part of the officers, such as claiming to be friends, delivery men, managers, or otherwise misrepresenting or concealing their identity.” (Mann v. Superior Court of San Bernardino County (1970) 3 Cal.3d 1, 9.) Here, the detectives did not misrepresent themselves, but actually told Kristy they were detectives investigating a crime that may involve Kelly and they wanted to search her room for evidence of the crime. There was no evidence the detectives used misrepresentation, trickery, stealth or subterfuge to obtain Kristy’s consent. Therefore, her consent was valid. and a search based on voluntary consent is legal.
Kelly also relies on my dissent in People v. Avalos (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1584-1585 (Avalos). However, in Avalos, police officers detained the defendant and told him his truck had been stopped as part of a burglary investigation. The officers said they wanted to search his truck for stolen property and “other contraband,” but they were really looking for methamphetamine. After the defendant consented to search, the officers found five pounds of methamphetamine.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the use of a police ruse rendered his consent involuntary. (Avalos, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1575.) A majority of this court disagreed. “Whether a particular consent is voluntary depends on the totality of the circumstances; no single factor is dispositive of this factually intensive inquiry. [Citation.] Thus, while police deception as to the purpose of the search is relevant in assessing a suspect’s consent, it cannot be analyzed in a vacuum without reference to the surrounding circumstances. [Citations.] (Avalos, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1578.) Because the officers gave a dual purpose for searching the defendant’s truck, and took extra precautions to ensure her understood a consent-to-search form, the majority found the officers made only a partial misrepresentation that did not disguise either the purpose or scope of the search. (Id. at p. 1579.) Consequently, as the majority determined, the defendant’s consent was in fact voluntary.
In dissenting, I asked a fundamental question: “when, if ever, can use of a deception or subterfuge to obtain consent result in a reasonable search?” (Avalos, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1584, dis. opn. Sills, J.) It is a salient question we need not address in this case because Avalos is inapposite. Here, the detectives identified themselves as police officers, told Kristy they were investigating a theft involving her daughter, and said they wanted to search her daughter’s room. Even assuming Miller mentioned possible drug problems solely for the purpose of gaining access to Kelly’s bedroom, an assumption we do not make, this remains only a partial misrepresentation that would not otherwise invalidate Kristy’s consent. Under the totality of the circumstances, we find Kristy voluntarily consented to the search with full knowledge of the consequences. Although she may now regret her decision, nothing in the record supports the notion that but for a ruse by the detectives she would have withheld her consent to the search.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, J.,IKOLA, J.