People v. Leal

93 Cal.App.5th 1143

311 Cal.Rptr.3d 540

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Hilario LEAL, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.

C096463

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed July 25, 2023

Paul R. Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Clara M. Levers and Jessica A. Perkins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ROBIE, J.

The Fourth Amendment's guarantee of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental to our sense of liberty and justice. ( U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) The general rule is that warrantless searches are unreasonable. ( Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576.) Certain circumstances, however, create exceptions to the general ban on warrantless searches. ( Ibid. ) One such exception—the automobile exception—is the focus of this appeal.

"The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’ " ( People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796, 801, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 650, quoting People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 753, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 323.) The scope of a warrantless search is "defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found." ( United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 ( Ross ).) In deciding whether a warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception, the facts are determinative. That is because probable cause exists "where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found." ( Ornelas v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911.)

Here, the searching police officer received information via a radio broadcast from another officer that a juvenile on probation with a firearm restriction likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in defendant Hilario Leal, Jr.’s car before defendant got into his car and drove away. Defendant's car was under constant surveillance from the time of the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search. When a search of the passenger compartment of defendant's car yielded no firearm, the searching officer decided to search the trunk, where he discovered a firearm. Defendant was charged with several offenses and filed a motion to suppress the firearm; the trial court denied the motion. Defendant ultimately pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question presented is whether the search of defendant's trunk was justified under the automobile exception. We conclude it was not.

We hold that when an officer has probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime will be found specifically in the passenger compartment of a vehicle (as compared to having probable cause to believe it will be found somewhere in the vehicle), and no other subsequent discovery or information provides further probable cause to believe the evidence will be found in the trunk, an officer's search of the trunk exceeds the permissible scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception. We accordingly reverse the judgment with directions to set aside the order denying defendant's motion to suppress, enter an order granting the motion, and allow defendant to move to withdraw his plea.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Before we lay out the facts pertaining to the search, we note that, on the date of the challenged search, Detective Edgar Guillen of the Stockton Police Department relayed the entirety of his observations to other police officers via radio broadcast, including to Stockton Police Officer Daniel Velarde, who conducted the search of defendant's car. Officer Velarde based his search on Detective Guillen's observations, as relayed via the radio broadcast; however, during his testimony at the motion to suppress hearing, Officer Velarde could not recall all of Detective Guillen's observations. We thus substantially set forth the testimony elicited from Detective Guillen at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress.

On April 1, 2021, a team of police officers, including Detective Guillen, were surveilling a funeral because the officers expected a criminal street gang connected to prior shootings to be in attendance. Detective Guillen was in an unmarked vehicle and wearing plain clothes; his role was to relay his observations regarding any disturbances, altercations, violence, or armed individuals to the other officers via radio broadcast. During his surveillance, Detective Guillen recognized a juvenile based on photographs he had seen and prior conversations he had had with other detectives as a result of a recent shooting at the juvenile's home. He was aware the juvenile was on searchable probation with a firearm restriction.

Detective Guillen believed the juvenile was carrying a firearm because the juvenile was holding his waistband as he was walking. Detective Guillen also saw an unidentifiable object protruding from the juvenile's right front waistband and knew individuals typically conceal firearms in that location. At one point, Detective Guillen saw the juvenile approach a woman and point toward the object with his head. The juvenile was also walking as if he was trying to prevent the object in his waistband from causing his pants to fall. After Detective Guillen relayed these observations to the rest of the surveillance team over the radio, another officer confirmed via radio broadcast that he was able to clearly see a black handgun in the juvenile's waistband.

The juvenile then contacted defendant and a woman, and the three of them walked toward defendant's car and stopped by the driver's side. The juvenile walked toward the car's closed trunk, looked around, and then walked back toward the grave site. Detective Guillen did not see the juvenile open the trunk. Shortly after the juvenile walked back to the grave site, defendant and the woman drove away, turned on a "little inner street," turned again at an intersection, and then drove back toward the grave site, stopping just short of it. The juvenile then approached defendant's parked car for a second time. Detective Guillen believed the juvenile still had the firearm at that point based on the way he was holding his waistband.

The juvenile walked toward the car's trunk, at which point Detective Guillen's view "was kind of obstructed" for 10 to 15 seconds. Detective Guillen then saw the juvenile walk away from the trunk with his hand on his waistband. He opened the rear driver's side door and sat down, appearing stiff in the waistband area unlike how "a normal person would sit down" and bend at the waist. The juvenile laid down in the car, reached toward his waistband, and turned toward the front seats—away from Detective Guillen—while moving his hand up toward his chest. Detective Guillen could not see what the juvenile had in his hand, but when the juvenile got out of the car, he no longer looked stiff. These observations, in conjunction with the fact that the juvenile adjusted his pants and walked away from defendant's car without holding his waistband, led Detective Guillen to believe the juvenile had placed the firearm underneath the front passenger seat in defendant's car. Detective Guillen broadcast these observations over the radio. At no point during Detective Guillen's surveillance did he see defendant's trunk open.

When defendant got into the driver's seat of his car, Detective Guillen broadcast a description of defendant's car, the license plate number, and the number of occupants, and requested that officers follow defendant until an enforcement stop could be conducted in a marked patrol car. Surveillance units followed defendant and saw him park his car at a barbershop and go inside. Officer Velarde arrived at the barbershop to perform the search of defendant's car, which was under constant surveillance from the time it left Detective Guillen's view until Officer Velarde arrived.

Officer Velarde detained defendant as he came out of the barbershop and told defendant he would be searching defendant's car. Defendant "became nervous and began to tell [Officer Velarde] that he didn't want [Officer Velarde] searching the car." Officer Velarde proceeded with the search of the passenger compartment, where he found a liquor bottle under the passenger seat. When he did not find a firearm in the passenger compartment, he "recall[ed] the surveillance units advising ... about the trunk area" and decided to search the trunk. Specifically, Officer Velarde testified that "surveillance units advised [him] that the males [who] were seen armed with the handgun were around the vehicle, including the trunk of the vehicle." Officer Velarde found "a loaded Glock handgun" in defendant's trunk.

As explained ante , Officer Velarde testified he could not recall hearing each fact elicited during Detective Guillen's testimony. Relevant here, Officer Velarde testified he could not recall hearing information about where the firearm would be in defendant's car, or that Detective Guillen thought the juvenile might have placed it underneath the passenger seat. He did, however, after listening to Detective Guillen's radio broadcast search the passenger compartment first and only proceeded to search the trunk when he did not find the firearm in the passenger compartment.

Officer Velarde further testified that, although he never heard via Detective Guillen's radio broadcast that anyone had accessed defendant's trunk, he was aware the trunk of defendant's car—a Honda...