From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Felsch

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
Jan 31, 2020
C086708 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020)

Opinion

C086708

01-31-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN FELSCH et al., Defendants and Appellants.


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed in this case on January 31, 2020, be modified as follows:

On page 2, third full paragraph, first sentence, insert the word "likely" between "was" and "dating" so that the sentence now reads:

"During the investigation, Torum discovered that Michael was likely dating Nada."

On page 3, first full paragraph, first sentence, insert the word "paper" between "two" and "bags" so that the sentence now reads:

"Katherine was carrying two paper bags that looked very heavy."

On page 3, second full paragraph, after the first sentence which ends with "personalized license plate" insert the following sentence:

"Officer Jacoby briefed patrol officers on May 11 about Torum's burglary investigation."

This modification does not change the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied. FOR THE COURT: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
ROBIE, J. /S/_________
MAURO, J. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 14F2814)

After officers stopped a car suspected to be connected to a prior burglary of silver coins, one of the officers smelled the strong odor of methamphetamine and asked the driver of the car, defendant Nada Rajaa Khadra Felsch, if she was concealing any drugs. Nada replied that she was concealing "a lot." A search of her person revealed methamphetamine. Methamphetamine was also discovered on the passenger in the car, defendant Michael Allen Felsch, and a search of Nada's vehicle located stolen silver coins.

The trial court denied defendants' motion to suppress evidence. Nada pleaded no contest to misdemeanor receiving stolen property and possession of methamphetamine and the trial court placed her on probation for three years. Michael pleaded guilty to transportation of methamphetamine for sale and receiving stolen property and he admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to five years four months in prison plus an additional five years four months on other offenses.

Defendants now contend the officers illegally stopped their car and detained them in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. We conclude the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion that Nada's car was connected to recent criminal activity in the area. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgments.

BACKGROUND

Around May 2014, a business in Redding was burglarized, and thousands of dollars worth of silver coins were stolen. While investigating the burglary, Officer Brian Torum received information from other officers and street informants that Michael, Leland McNeil, and Michael Short were involved in the burglary. Torum was familiar with Michael and McNeil from prior criminal investigations.

During the investigation, Torum discovered that Michael was dating Nada. He also learned that she drove a white Mercedes sedan with the personalized license plate NEDZBENZ. Torum provided this information to patrol officers and investigators, and asked that they keep a look out for the vehicle as well as for any stolen property related to the burglary.

On May 9, a patrol officer spotted the Mercedes at a motel. Torum arrived at the motel and confirmed that the Mercedes was parked there. Torum saw McNeil sitting on a motorcycle parked next to the Mercedes.

Torum returned the next day on May 10, and spoke with a motel employee. Torum learned that Nada had rented a room at the motel, and he set up surveillance from a room directly across from Nada's room. An hour later, he saw Katherine McNeil, who was McNeil's daughter, emerge from Nada's room. Torum was familiar with Katherine from prior criminal investigations.

Katherine was carrying two bags that looked very heavy. Torum found this significant because the stolen silver weighed over 100 pounds. Although neither Torum nor any other officers saw Katherine get into Nada's Mercedes in the motel parking lot, the Mercedes then drove out of the motel parking lot. Torum believed Katherine may have been in possession of the stolen silver coins and informed other officers.

Torum informed Officer Chris Jacoby, who was the patrol supervisor at the time, about the burglary investigation, and he identified Katherine as a person of interest as well as Nada's white Mercedes with its distinctive, personalized license plate. Later that day, Officers Matthew Stoker and Rebecca Zufall pulled the Mercedes over. Jacoby arrived on scene a few minutes later and saw two occupants in the car who were later identified as Nada and Michael. Nada was driving. But Jacoby believed Nada was Katherine. Jacoby referred to Nada as Katherine and told her they had warrants for her arrest. Nada did not correct Jacoby or otherwise identify herself. The officers placed her in the back of a patrol car while they secured the Mercedes and Michael for safety reasons as Jacoby was familiar with Michael and knew he had prior weapons-related arrests.

Jacoby later opened the door of the patrol car where Nada was seated and smelled a strong odor that, based on his training and experience, he recognized as methamphetamine. He asked Nada whether she was concealing any drugs, and she responded that she was concealing "a lot." A search of her person revealed methamphetamine. Methamphetamine was also discovered on Michael, and a search of the Mercedes located stolen silver coins.

Michael moved to suppress the evidence against him and Nada joined in the motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the car based on the officers' reasonable belief that Katherine, who had outstanding warrants, was driving Nada's car and was somehow connected to the burglary Torum had been investigating because her father and Michael, Nada's boyfriend, were burglary suspects.

Following denial of the motion, Nada pleaded no contest to misdemeanor receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) and possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377). The trial court placed her on probation for three years. Michael pleaded guilty to transportation of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and he admitted a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced Michael to five years four months in prison plus an additional five years four months on unrelated offenses in several other cases that were resolved at the same time.

Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

DISCUSSION

Defendants contend the trial court erred in denying their motion to suppress because insufficient evidence showed the detaining officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to initiate the traffic stop. Because neither of the officers who pulled the car over testified at the motion to suppress hearing, defendants argue there is no evidence of the justification for stopping the car. Michael further contends the record does not support the trial court's findings and the officers pulled the car over merely on a hunch.

"In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we view the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling and defer to its findings of historical fact, whether express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. We then decide for ourselves what legal principles are relevant, independently apply them to the historical facts, and determine as a matter of law whether there has been an unreasonable search [or] seizure." (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922; see People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521, 529 ["We judge the legality of the search by 'measur[ing] the facts, as found by the trier, against the constitutional standard of reasonableness' "].)

Traffic stops are treated as an investigatory detention. (People v. Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 299.) Investigatory detentions require objectively reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity." (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230.) The investigating officer must point to "specific and articulable facts" that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place, is occurring, or is about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop is involved in that activity. (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 893.) The reasonable suspicion standard is not a particularly demanding one, but is, instead, "considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence." (United States v. Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7 [104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10].) Reasonable suspicion can arise from "less reliable information than required for probable cause, including an anonymous tip." (People v. Wells (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1078, 1083, citing Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330 [110 L.Ed.2d 301, 309].)

In this case, the trial court found that the officers who initiated the traffic stop -- Officers Stoker and Zufall -- acted on instructions and information received from their supervising officers. Substantial evidence and the reasonable inferences derived therefrom support the trial court's finding. Officer Torum testified that he told Officer Jacoby and others to watch for Nada's white Mercedes, which he believed Katherine was driving after he saw Katherine leave Nada's motel room carrying two very heavy bags that were consistent with the weight of the stolen silver coins. He specifically informed Jacoby about his suspicion that Katherine was potentially in possession of stolen property related to the burglary he was investigating, and that she was likely driving Nada's white Mercedes with its distinctive license plate. Jacoby passed the relevant information on to Stoker and Zufall. These facts reasonably support the trial court's finding that the officers were acting on the information and instructions they received from Jacoby, who had been briefed by Torum. In addition, these facts are sufficient to justify the investigatory detention. Torum reasonably investigated the burglary and conveyed the results of the investigation to Jacoby, who relayed that information to the detaining officers.

Although the record does not disclose the identity of the informants and officers who initially told Torum about Michael and McNeil's possible involvement in the burglary, Torum did not simply rely on those tips to detain Michael. He investigated further and found additional information linking Michael, Nada, the white Mercedes, McNeil, the motel, Katherine, and the heavy bags she carried. (Alabama v. White, supra, 496 U.S. at pp. 329-332 [110 L.Ed.2d at pp. 308-310] [under the totality of the circumstances, an anonymous tip, as corroborated by independent police work, exhibited sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the investigatory stop of the defendant's car].) The fact that officers thought Nada was Katherine does not mean the officers acted unreasonably in light of all the circumstances. The trial court properly concluded that the detaining officers had reasonable articulable suspicion to pull the car over.

DISPOSITION

The judgments are affirmed.

/S/_________

MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
ROBIE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Felsch

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
Jan 31, 2020
C086708 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Felsch

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN FELSCH et al.…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)

Date published: Jan 31, 2020

Citations

C086708 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2020)