From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ramirez

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
No. D052348 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)

Opinion

D052348

9-29-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA PAULINE RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published


Following denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), Victoria Pauline Ramirez entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) with a prior conviction of the same offense (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The court sentenced her to a stipulated five-year prison sentence: the two-year middle term for possessing methamphetamine for sale and three years for the prior. Ramirez appeals the denial of her suppression motion, contending the police did not have probable cause to contact her in her motel room, the People did not meet their burden of showing she consented to their entry, the court erred by finding the police had reasonable suspicion to detain her, and the police violated her Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (l966) 384 U.S. 436). We affirm.

The abstract of judgment does not reflect the prior conviction. We order the abstract of judgment amended accordingly.

BACKGROUND

Around 1:30 p.m. on December 14, 2006, Chula Vista Police Department narcotics detective Scott Schneider saw a passenger get out of a Honda Prelude in the parking lot at the Days Inn. The passenger walked toward room 131, which was registered to Ramirez, before he disappeared from sight. The passenger got back in the Prelude and it proceeded to a restaurant where the driver and passenger met two people in a green car. The two men in the Prelude appeared to engage in a drug transaction with the people in the green car. The police stopped the Prelude in National City and found heroin hidden in the car. At about 4:00 p.m. they arrested the occupants for selling heroin.

Immediately after this, Schneider, a police sergeant, and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent went to room 131. None of the officers were in uniform. Through the window, Schneider saw Ramirez and Danielle Zavala on beds in the room, watching television. Schneider turned on a tape recorder, knocked, and said "Open the door."

Schneider tape recorded his entire conversation with Ramirez. The recording was played at the suppression hearing and its transcript was admitted into evidence. Portions of the tape were inaudible.

When Ramirez came to the door, Schneider asked her name. She said "Victoria." Schneider asked whether she was on probation or parole. She said no. He showed her his badge and said, "Do you mind if we come in and talk to you for a minute? Because were detectives with the police department." Ramirez said "Oh." Schneider asked, "Who else is here?" and "Can I just make sure theres nobody with an AK-47 hiding?" Ramirez responded, "Go right ahead." She opened the door wider and stepped aside, allowing the officers to enter.

As Schneider walked toward the bathroom, he saw a bong in plain sight on the nightstand. He returned to stand near the door, asked Ramirez and Zavala whether there was marijuana or anything else illegal in the room, and told them to keep their hands out of their pockets. Ramirez stated they did not have guns and said, "Tell us why youre here." Schneider explained they were conducting a follow-up investigation after arresting two men for selling heroin and asked if the men had dropped off something at the motel room. Ramirez responded that the men had been there because Zavala owed them money and said, "After I left, on my bike, I didnt know that was going on in here." Schneider asked Zavala if she had any needles in the room. She said there might be a needle in her bag.

Schneider testified that bongs were used to smoke marijuana and tobacco and it was not illegal to possess a bong.

According to the tape recording, he said, "Since we havent checked you for guns or anything, just keep your hands in your pockets while were talking."

Schneider asked Ramirez to step outside and speak with him. She agreed. Once they were outside, he explained he was concerned there was contraband in the room and asked, "would you be okay with me grabbing the needle and making sure that [Zavala] hasnt left any other drugs in here?" Ramirez responded, "I dont want to get in trouble" and "You can search her stuff if you want. I mean, its not mine, I dont have a problem with it but I dont think she. . . ." Schneider had Ramirez point out which bags and property were hers and which were Zavalas. He asked, "Okay, and you dont want me searching your bags?" Ramirez replied, "No, because I dont have anything in them. You know?"

Back in the room, Schneider told Ramirez, "Go on and have a seat. Im not accusing you of anything, like I said before, but when. . . ." Ramirez said, "If you want to look in my stuff, you can. Ive got nothing to hide." Schneider responded, "Okay, thats just all Im saying, when people all of a sudden say you can search her stuff, but not my stuff." Ramirez repeated that Schneider could search her belongings.

There was a fanny pack on the bed where Ramirez had been sitting. In the fanny pack Schneider found methamphetamine, a scale, packaging material, pay and owe sheets, and two identification cards in Ramirezs name. When questioned, Ramirez denied the drugs were hers. Also in the room were 1.76 grams of heroin, more packaging material and pay and owe sheets, and a small amount of marijuana. Zavala identified heroin and needles in a drawer as hers. The officers arrested Ramirez and Zavala. A search of Ramirez incident to arrest yielded a pipe, methamphetamine, and pay and owe sheets.

After the officers transported Ramirez to the police station, they advised her of her Miranda rights and she waived those rights. She said she would accept responsibility for everything in the room if it would exonerate Zavala. She said she would not have consented to the search if she had known about the contraband and theorized that other people had planted it in her belongings.

At the suppression hearing, Ramirez testified Schneider put one foot inside the door as soon as she opened it and she did not give him permission to enter.

DISCUSSION

Ramirez contends the police did not have probable cause to contact her in her motel room, the People did not meet their burden of showing she consented to their entry, the court erred by finding the police had reasonable suspicion to detain her, and the police violated her Miranda rights.

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.) We must view the facts in the light most favorable to respondent. (People v. Berkeley (1978) 88 Cal.App.3d 457, 459, fn. 1.)

The police did not need probable cause to knock on the motel room door. (People v. Rivera (2007) 41 Cal.4th 304, 308.) The voluntariness of Ramirezs consent to Schneiders entry into the room is a factual issue to be examined against the totality of the circumstances. (Ohio v. Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 40; People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 445.) The People bore the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence her "manifestation of consent was the product of [her] free will and not a mere submission to an express or implied assertion of authority." (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 106.) "The standard for measuring the scope of a suspects consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of `objective reasonableness — what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?" (Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. 248, 251.)

The court found Schneider to be credible. The tape recording demonstrated he spoke calmly, in a conversational tone, and did not shout or yell. With no show of force, he asked—not demanded—to enter the motel room. Ramirez verbally assented, opened the door wider, and stepped aside. A reasonable person would have construed this as a freely-given invitation to enter the room.

Nor did the court err by finding the police had reasonable suspicion to detain Ramirez. "A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity." (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231.) When Schneider saw the bong, he reasonably believed there might be marijuana in the room. This, coupled with the earlier drug activity apparently connected to the motel room, constituted specific articulable facts justifying Ramirezs detention.

Finally, the police did not violate Ramirezs Miranda rights. Schneiders questions to Ramirez at the motel were investigatory in nature and she was not in custody. (Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 439; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 Cal.3d 612, 649.) Because she was not in custody, no Miranda warnings were required. (People v. Mickey, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 648.)

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

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect the three-year term for the prior conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)) and to forward the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We Concur:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

MCDONALD, J.


Summaries of

People v. Ramirez

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
No. D052348 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Ramirez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VICTORIA PAULINE RAMIREZ…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Sep 29, 2008

Citations

No. D052348 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)