People v. Souza

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS DALE SOUZA, Defendant and Appellant.

H047779

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

May 17, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County Super. Ct. No. 18CR011585)

I. INTRODUCTION

After the trial court denied his motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant Dennis Dale Souza pleaded no contest to possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351),¹ misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance injection or ingestion device (§ 11364, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years in county jail pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (h).

Defendant contends that the evidence against him must be suppressed because there was not probable cause to issue the search warrant and the police officer's relianceon the warrant was objectively unreasonable. The Attorney General counters that the search warrant affidavit provided probable cause for the warrant and that even if there was not probable cause, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.

For reasons that we will explain, we determine that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause for issuance of the warrant because it provided the magistrate with " 'a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing.' [Citations.]" (People v. Westerfield (2019) 6 Cal.5th 632, 659 (Westerfield).) Moreover, even if we were to find that there was not probable cause for the search, we would conclude that suppression is unwarranted because the officers executing the warrant relied on it in good faith. (See United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 923 (Leon).) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Preliminary Hearing Evidence

On December 5, 2018, Monterey Police Officer Jeremiah Ruttschow went to Saf Keep Storage and determined that defendant had a storage unit there. Someone using defendant's personal access code had entered the storage facility approximately a half hour before Officer Ruttschow's arrival. Video footage showed a white Lexus entering the facility when defendant's code was used. The Lexus left the facility approximately 10 minutes later.

Pursuant to a search warrant, Officer Ruttschow subsequently searched defendant's storage unit, finding a small black pouch containing approximately 13.06 grams of suspected heroin in four small packages, approximately 1.01 grams of suspected methamphetamine in two small packages, and five methamphetamine pipes. Officer Ruttschow also found over 100 small plastic baggies consistent with those used to package heroin, a digital scale, two syringes, and defendant's credit card.

Defendant stated that he had a couple grams of heroin in the storage unit and that he was a methamphetamine user but did not use heroin. Defendant admitted selling heroin and that he had been inside the white Lexus.

The parties stipulated that "the substances found [were] methamphetamine and . . . heroin."

B. Charges

An information was filed charging defendant with possession of heroin for sale (§ 11351), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance injection or ingestion device (§ 11364, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)).

C. Motion to Quash the Warrant and Suppress Evidence

After the information was filed, defendant filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence against him (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), contending that the search warrant affidavit did not establish probable cause and that it was not objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on the warrant.

1. Search Warrant Affidavit

On December 5, 2018, Monterey Police Detective Jeff Reiland requested a warrant pursuant to Penal Code section 1524 seeking to seize evidence of stolen or embezzled property, property or things used as a means of committing a felony or public offense or concealing such property, and/or evidence tending to show a felony had been committed or a particular person had committed a felony. The search warrant affidavit specified the place to be searched as Saf Keep Self Storage, unit 29, in Del Ray Oaks and the property to be seized as a set of 1988 Ford Ranger keys, a Samsung cell phone charger, and several articles of clothing.

Detective Reiland submitted a six-page statement of probable cause signed under penalty of perjury as part of the affidavit. In the statement, Detective Reiland detailed that he had been a peace officer since August 2007 and was assigned to the field trainingunit from November 2016 to October 2018, where he conducted and assisted in the investigation of hundreds of crimes including robbery, burglary, fraud, identity theft, and financial crimes. Detective Reiland stated that he had been assigned to the investigations unit since October 2018, where he conducted investigations, prepared and executed search warrants, and prepared cases for prosecution. Detective Reiland had attended over 600 hours of advanced officer training.

Detective Reiland averred that on December 4, 2018, at approximately 8:27 p.m., officers were dispatched to a reported disturbance at Del Monte Pines Motel. On the officers' arrival, the reporting party said that he saw three men walk toward room 7, heard sounds of a commotion coming from the room, and then saw the three men leave.

Detective Reiland stated that Monterey Police Officer Arrollo contacted room 7's occupant. The occupant told Officer Arrollo that when he opened the door after hearing a knock, three Hispanic men dressed in red pushed their way into his room, attacked him, and took his backpack. The backpack contained the occupant's 1988 Ford Ranger keys and wallet. The occupant then said that the men did not enter the room and his wallet was not missing, although he was unable to locate it. The occupant became uncooperative with Officer Arrollo and at one point stated that the backpack was empty, but he maintained that the backpack had been taken. The occupant believed the three men showed up because he was a Sureño gang member. The occupant declined to state whether he could identify the men.

Detective Reiland stated that at approximately 9:40 p.m., Officer Arrollo was directed to contact J.S., Sr., regarding the incident. J.S., Sr., told Officer Arrollo that he went to the motel with his son, J.S., Jr., and another man, later identified as defendant, to collect $1,200 that the occupant owed. When the three men entered the room, the occupant and a woman were there. J.S., Sr., told Officer Arrollo that the occupant said he could only pay half of what he owed. An argument ensued and the occupant told them to leave. J.S., Sr., stated that they took the backpack that was on the bed and left.

Detective Reiland averred that he spoke to J.S., Sr., at the police department at approximately 10:55 the following morning. J.S., Sr., stated that the occupant told defendant to come to the motel so that the occupant could pay him the money he owed. J.S., Sr., went to the motel with J.S., Jr., and defendant. After the men got the occupant's room number from the front desk, the occupant invited them into his room and said that he could only pay back half of the money owed. An argument ensued. The occupant pulled out a knife and swung it in the air. The occupant began fighting with J.S., Jr., who knocked the knife away. J.S., Sr., said that as they were leaving, the occupant threw a backpack at J.S., Jr., and J.S., Jr., "collected it." J.S., Sr., stated that the backpack contained a set of keys. J.S., Sr., dropped J.S., Jr., and defendant off at the Elks Lodge. About an hour and a half later, J.S., Sr., got a call from J.S., Jr., to pick him up. Detective Reiland did not find any incoming calls on J.S., Sr.'s phone that corroborated his statement.

Detective Reiland stated that at approximately 11:58 a.m., J.S., Jr., arrived at the police department and agreed to speak with him. J.S., Jr., said that he went to the motel with J.S., Sr., and defendant to collect a debt. The front desk gave J.S., Sr., the occupant's room number. J.S., Jr., said that the occupant invited them into the room and that there was a woman inside. According to J.S., Jr., an argument began between defendant and the occupant when the occupant stated that he could only pay back some of the money. The occupant "starting then telling [defendant] that he was burned and screwed and that he was not going to pay him his money." The occupant pulled a knife. J.S., Jr., initially told Detective Reiland that he did not fight with the occupant, but then admitted to punching the occupant and getting punched. As they were leaving, the occupant threw a backpack at them. J.S., Jr., picked up the backpack and they left. J.S., Jr., stated that the backpack contained a cell phone charger and a pair of sunglasses. J.S., Jr., said that he threw the backpack into a trashcan at the Elks Lodge.

Detective Reiland averred that after he asked J.S., Jr., about the inconsistencies in his story, J.S., Jr., admitted that the occupant had not been expecting them, but insisted that the occupant had invited them into his room. J.S., Jr., was placed under arrest and read his Miranda rights.² J.S., Jr., agreed to speak to Detective Reiland.

Detective Reiland stated that J.S., Jr., said that "[b]efore the robbery, [J.S., Jr.,] received a call from [J.S., Sr.,] asking him to go with [defendant] and [J.S., Sr.,] to the motel." J.S., Jr., knew they were going to the motel to collect the money and J.S.,...