From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jimenez

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. D049689 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAMS MONTOYA JIMENEZ, Defendant and Appellant. D049689 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division March 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD200246, Kerry Wells and David Danielsen, Judges.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), Williams Montoya Jimenez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). The court placed him on three years' probation. Jimenez appeals the denial of his suppression motion, contending he was illegally detained and searched. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2006, San Diego Police Department narcotics investigator Michael Aiken told patrol officers about a suspected cocaine delivery vehicle operating in Pacific Beach. He described the vehicle — a gold car similar to a Chrysler or Dodge Stratus — and gave the officers a partial license plate number. The officers were told that the driver might be with another person who might be involved in drug sales, one of them might be a Hispanic male, and the drugs being sold in Pacific Beach were from Vera Cruz, Mexico.

That afternoon, San Diego Police Officer Dave Speck saw a car fitting the description, including the partial license plate number, parked in an alley off Missouri Street in the beach area. He asked other patrol officers to assist him in making a stop when and if the car moved. The officers planned to look for a reason to stop the car, such as a Vehicle Code violation.

A few minutes after San Diego Police Officer John Breckenridge reached the alley, the car came out of the alley and proceeded down the street. Breckenridge, with San Diego Police Officer Adam Young as a passenger, followed the car to a grocery store parking lot in Pacific Beach, where it stopped in a parking stall in front of the store. The driver, Antonio Hernandez, and the passenger, Jimenez, got out of the car. Breckenridge and Young got out of their patrol car and approached Hernandez and Jimenez.

Breckenridge and Young were in uniform. Speck was present also in uniform and in a marked car. The officers did not make any display of authority. No other officers were in the immediate area, but Officer Higdon, also in uniform and in a marked car, was on the scene. No patrol car blocked the suspect car. About five minutes into the ensuing contact, one of the patrol officers called for a detective. Within 20 minutes, three narcotics detectives arrived. Apparently, none of the detectives blocked the suspect car.

Young went to one side of the suspect car to talk to Hernandez, while Breckenridge contacted Jimenez on the other side of the car. Breckenridge wanted to find out who Jimenez was, and in light of the information concerning the gold car, whether or not he was involved in any illegal activity.

Breckenridge, who did not speak Spanish, spoke to Jimenez in English. Jimenez responded mostly in English, and was able to "group together words." It did not appear to Breckenridge that he was having any trouble communicating with Jimenez. Jimenez's responses were appropriate for Breckenridge's questions.

Breckenridge asked Jimenez for his identification. Jimenez produced a wallet from his person, and presented a Tijuana driver's license in the name Zain, and a Vera Cruz voter registration document in the name Montoya Jimenez.

From his training and experience, Breckenridge knew narcotics traffickers were very likely to be armed, and he was concerned that Jimenez might be armed. Jimenez's clothing — baggy shorts and an untucked shirt — prevented Breckenridge from seeing whether Jimenez had a weapon on his person. For his own safety, Breckenridge wanted to pat Jimenez down.

Breckenridge had been a San Diego Police Officer for 19 years.

Breckenridge acknowledged that Jimenez's clothing was typical attire for the hot weather.

Breckenridge asked Jimenez if he had drugs or weapons. Jimenez said no. Breckenridge asked Jimenez if he could — or told him he was going to — conduct a patdown search for weapons and drugs. Jimenez seemed to understand, and said okay, so Breckenridge had him turn around and place his hands behind his back. At the time Breckenridge obtained Jimenez's consent for the pat down, Officer Higdon was some distance away.

As Jimenez placed his hands behind his back and put his hands together, Breckenridge held his thumbs. Jimenez immediately went rigid and pulled his hands at least a foot away. He appeared very nervous. This strengthened Breckenridge's suspicion that he might be armed or have contraband on his person. Jimenez's nervousness, rigidity, and body language caused Breckenridge to be further concerned for his own safety. Breckenridge did not feel comfortable leaving Jimenez unsecured. He told Jimenez he was going to handcuff him, then did so. Breckenridge also told Jimenez he was not under arrest, and conducted a pat down search for weapons.

Breckenridge wanted to look in Jimenez' pockets, and asked Jimenez if he could search for weapons and drugs. Jimenez seemed to understand, and said okay. In the cargo pockets of Jimenez's shorts, Breckenridge found slightly less than $5,000 in cash. No more than 10 minutes elapsed between the time Breckenridge walked up to Jimenez and the time he found the cash.

Breckenridge kept Jimenez by his side, then placed him in the air conditioned patrol car, as the day was extremely hot. At that point, Breckenridge did not consider Jimenez to be under arrest.

A police dog, trained to "alert" for the scent of narcotics, was brought to the scene. The dog arrived within approximately 20 to 45 minutes of the initial contact. The dog alerted to the money taken from Jimenez, and to the dashboard. A search of the vehicle disclosed approximately $4,000 in cash hidden behind the dashboard and receipts for wire transfers to Vera Cruz, including one from Jimenez.

Aiken arrived within 45 minutes of the initial contact, and he and the other narcotics detectives took custody of Jimenez. From the time Breckenridge arrived on the scene until the narcotics detectives took custody of Jimenez, at most two hours had elapsed.

Jimenez and Hernandez were taken to Drug Enforcement Administration headquarters. Hernandez was arrested for a probation violation and Jimenez was arrested for providing false information to an officer. A search of Hernandez's apartment, pursuant to his Fourth Amendment waiver, revealed approximately one-half pound of cocaine, two digital scales, packaging materials, and receipts for money sent to Mexico. After being advised of and waiving his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (l966) 384 U.S. 436), Jimenez told a detective that he was selling cocaine with Hernandez.

DISCUSSION

Jimenez contends he was detained when the officer stopped him, asked for identification, handcuffed him, and searched him; the detention was illegal; the pat down search was invalid and unjustified; and the consent to search was invalid.

The appellate court reviewing the denial of a suppression motion must uphold all express and implied factual findings of the trial court if substantial evidence supports them, and independently measure them against the proper constitutional standard of reasonableness. (People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597; People v. Trujillo (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1219, 1223-1224.) Thus, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to respondent. (People v. Berkeley (1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 457, 459, fn. 1.)

"[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [and] by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen . . . ." (Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 497.) Here, Breckenridge reasonably wanted to find out if Jimenez was involved in the drug sales that were connected with a vehicle matching the description of the car in which Jimenez was a passenger. Breckenridge merely approached Jimenez after Jimenez was already out of the car. At the time Breckenridge contacted Jimenez and asked for his identification, the encounter was consensual. An encounter with a police officer becomes a detention only when a reasonable person would believe he or she is not free to leave. (U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554-555.) A request for identification does not, by itself, turn a consensual encounter into a detention. (Florida v. Royer, supra, at p. 555; I.N.S. v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 216.) Breckenridge, Young, and Speck were the only officers in the immediate area, and they did not block the suspect car or make any display of authority.

Jimenez presented identification in two different names, leading to the reasonable deduction that one of the names was false. One of the pieces of identification linked him to Vera Cruz, a further indication that he might be involved in the reported narcotics trafficking. These factors provided grounds to detain Jiminez for further investigation, including examination of the vehicle by the police dog. Once the dog alerted to the dashboard, there was probable cause to arrest Jiminez and search his person. Thus, assuming without deciding that the patdown was unlawful, it was inevitable that the police would have discovered the cash in Jimenez's pockets and the vehicle; the documents in the vehicle and the apartment; the cocaine, scales, and packaging materials in the apartment; and Jimenez's statement. Under the inevitable discovery doctrine, this evidence was therefore not subject to suppression. (People v. Thierry (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 176, 180.)

The trial court did not err by denying the suppression motion.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: AARON, J. IRION, J.


Summaries of

People v. Jimenez

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 17, 2008
No. D049689 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Jimenez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIAMS MONTOYA JIMENEZ…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Mar 17, 2008

Citations

No. D049689 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2008)