People v. McWilliams

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DUVANH ANTHONY MCWILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

H045525

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

March 8, 2021

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1754407)

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Duvanh Anthony McWilliams pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), unlawful possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)),¹ and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted several sentencing allegations (§§ 12022, subd. (c), 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison.

Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant claims that he was illegally detained because there was no reasonable suspicion he was involved in criminal activity. Defendant further asserts that the officer's subsequent discovery that he was on active parole does not trigger the application of the attenuation doctrine because the evidence against himwas obtained by exploiting the unlawful detention. The Attorney General counters that defendant's detention was supported by reasonable suspicion and that even assuming the detention was unlawful, defendant's parolee status supplied independent legal authorization for the ensuing search under the attenuation doctrine.

We determine that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on the absence of "specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide[d] some objective manifestation that [defendant] may [have] be[en] involved in criminal activity." (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231 (Souza).) However, under the principles articulated in Utah v. Strieff (2016) 136 S.Ct. 2056 (Strieff) and People v. Brendlin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 262 (Brendlin), we conclude that the officer's discovery of defendant's "active and searchable CDC[R] parole" status constituted an intervening circumstance that sufficiently attenuated the connection between the detention and the evidence seized during the ensuing search, rendering suppression unwarranted. Accordingly, we affirm.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Charges

Defendant was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 1), transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 3), and unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1); count 4). It was also alleged that defendant was personally armed with a firearm during the commission of counts 1 and 2 (§ 12022, subd. (c)), had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had a prior juvenile adjudication that qualified as a strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (b)).²

B. Motion to Suppress Evidence

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5), asserting that the prosecution had the burden to justify the warrantless detention and search (see People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130).

The prosecution filed written opposition, conceding that defendant had been detained without a warrant when an officer asked him to exit his parked vehicle, but contending that the detention was lawful because it was based on a reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal activity. The prosecution argued that there was reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on a 911 call reporting suspicious activity in the area and the fact that it was nighttime, defendant's vehicle was parked in "a private business parking lot" after business hours "on an observed holiday," defendant was "in a position of partial concealment" inside the vehicle, and defendant "was not dressed like he was going to work." The prosecution asserted that the subsequent search was lawful because a records check revealed that defendant was on parole.³

Defendant did not file a reply.

C. Evidence Elicited at the Motion to Suppress Hearing

At approximately 6:52 p.m. on January 2, 2017, San Jose Police Officer Matthew Croucher was dispatched to a Broadcom parking lot. A Broadcom security guard had called 911 to report "a possible vehicle burglary."

When Officer Croucher arrived, the security guard informed him that there were two "suspicious individuals on bikes in the [Broadcom] parking lot." The guard statedthat the individuals were using flashlights to look into cars. Officer Croucher drove through the lot, finding nothing of note.

As part of his investigation into the guard's report, Officer Croucher drove through an adjacent parking lot that the security guard directed him to. Approximately four or five vehicles were parked in the lot. Initially, nothing in the lot attracted Officer Croucher's attention, but when he used his spotlight, Officer Croucher saw that the front passenger seat of one of the parked cars was occupied. Officer Croucher observed that the seat was fully reclined and saw "the top of what appeared to be a human head." Officer Croucher realized that the occupant was "just somebody hanging out in the car," not sleeping. The car was the only occupied vehicle in the lot. Officer Croucher decided to detain the occupant, later identified as defendant.

Officer Croucher pulled his patrol vehicle approximately two car lengths behind defendant's car. Another officer arrived and pulled to the side of Officer Croucher's vehicle.

Officer Croucher made "verbal contact [with defendant] from the front of [his] vehicle," while the other officer on scene stood a couple of feet behind Officer Croucher. Officer Croucher identified himself as a police officer and instructed defendant to get out of the vehicle for officer safety reasons, as he does "with most car stops . . . or most suspicious vehicles that [he] come[s] across." Defendant's vehicle was suspicious to Officer Croucher because it was in a dark lot of what he believed to be a closed business. The officer had been to the lot many times and passed through it during the day when the businesses were open and there were significantly more vehicles. The interiors of the buildings were dark and no one was walking around the lot. The officer felt he "had reasonable suspicion, based on what the security guard told [him], that [defendant] may or may not have been related to the subjects that we were looking for."

Defendant exited his vehicle and moved toward the patrol car at Officer Croucher's request. When Officer Croucher asked defendant for identification, he statedthat it was in the car. Officer Croucher directed defendant to retrieve his identification, which he did. Upon running a records check, Officer Croucher learned that defendant was "on active and searchable CDC[R] parole."⁴

D. Arguments and Ruling

Defendant argued that Officer Croucher did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him, observing that Officer Croucher detained him because "it was dark, he believed the business was closed, and there was a small number of cars." Defendant also asserted that "the call that attracted the police to the parking lot was a call . . . that didn't match what was going on with [him] at all."

The prosecution conceded that defendant was detained when he was ordered from his vehicle. The prosecution argued there was reasonable suspicion to detain defendant based on "the fact that [defendant] was in partial concealment, the time of night, the fact the business was closed, there's poor visibility, . . . there were no other individuals [in the parking lot] and [the officers were] responding to a 9-1-1 call based on suspicious activity." The prosecution disputed that none of the circumstances matched the 911 call because the officer "responded in a short amount of time and . . . the only person in that adjacent parking lot was the defendant's vehicle." The prosecution asserted that one of the two individuals the security guard saw looking into cars "could easily have jumped inside a car; the fact that [defendant's] seat was reclined all the way back, he could only see the top of his head, this was suspicious to the officer."

The trial court denied the motion to suppress, determining that "the information from the security guard plus the presence of the defendant in the parking lot of the closed business with no one else seemingly around does give the officer . . . reasonablesuspicion to detain and further investigate."

E. Pleas and Sentencing

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition and admitted the arming, prior prison term, and prior strike allegations.

Pursuant to the terms of a negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced defendant to seven years in state prison.

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues that he was detained without reasonable suspicion when the police ordered him out of his car and that the evidence against him was obtained by exploiting the illegal seizure. Relying primarily on this court's decision in People v. Bates (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 60 (Bates), defendant asserts that the officer's discovery of his parolee status did not constitute an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint of the unlawful detention. The Attorney General counters that the trial court properly denied the suppression motion because defendant's detention was...