Sellers v. Super. Ct. of Sacramento Cty.

324 Cal.Rptr.3d 650

Davonyae SELLERS, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent;

The People, Real Party in Interest.

C100036

Court of Appeal, Third District.

Filed August 22, 2024

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING in mandate and/or prohibition. The stay order issued by this court on February 2, 2024, will terminate upon finality of this opinion. Petition denied. Deborah D. Lobre, Judge. (Super. Ct. No. 21FE018661)

Amanda M. Benson, Public Defender, Cecilia C. Herrera, Assistant Public Defender, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Edrina M. Anderson and Clara M. Levers Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

Krause, J.

In this mandamus action, petitioner Davonyae Sellers challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search of a vehicle. The question presented is whether the plainview observation of a marijuana rolling tray and approximately 0.36 grams of loose marijuana on the rear floorboard, coupled with other factors, provided probable cause for police officers to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. Because we conclude that the search was supported by probable cause, we deny the petition.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURE

On November 5, 2021, around 4:30 p.m., defendant was riding in the front passenger seat of a vehicle that was stopped by police for a minor traffic infraction (Veh. Code § 22450 [limit line violation]). Aside from the traffic violation, there was nothing suspicious about the vehicle.

During the traffic stop, three police officers emerged from the patrol car and approached the vehicle. Officer Conner Mills approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, while Officers Derek Goetting and Mark Thrall approached the passenger side.

Officer Mills contacted the female driver and explained the reason for the traffic stop. The driver was sweating and both defendant and the driver appeared slightly nervous. Officer Mills requested a driver’s license and asked if there was any marijuana or anything illegal in the vehicle. The driver said no. However, Officer Mills could see in the back of the vehicle a tray commonly used for rolling marijuana cigarettes or blunts.¹ The tray was covered in a sticky residue consistent with marijuana. Officer Mills found the presence of the tray suspicious given the driver’s statement that there was no marijuana in the vehicle.

[1] While Officer Mills was speaking with the driver, Officer Thrall conducted a plain view search of the vehicle by peering through the rear passenger’s side window.² Using his flashlight, Officer Thrall saw "crumbs" of green, loose-leaf marijuana scattered throughout the rear floorboard, as well as "somewhat larger" "round circular nuggets" of marijuana under the front passenger seat.

The marijuana observed by the police officers was "loose" in the vehicle. According to Officer Thrall, it appeared as if the marijuana had been "crumbled" throughout the rear of the vehicle. The marijuana was not in a container and the officers did not observe any containers nearby. The officers did not recall smelling any marijuana odor and they found no rolling papers, joints, blunt wrappers or blunts, pipes, vapes, or other smoking devices in the vehicle. The driver obeyed all commands and there was nothing to suggest she was driving under the influence.

Based on the loose marijuana observed on the floorboard, together with the marijuana rolling tray and other factors, the police officers concluded there was probable cause to search the vehicle. Thus, officers asked defendant and the driver to exit the vehicle so officers could perform the probable cause search. As defendant was preparing to exit the vehicle, Officer Thrall asked if he had any weapons on him. Defendant responded that he had a firearm, which was located on the side of the passenger seat. Officer Goetting then searched and found a black nine-millimeter handgun underneath the front passenger seat.

Officer Goetting also collected the loose marijuana from the rear passenger floorboard. In total, the marijuana collected from the vehicle weighed 0.36 grams, which the officers testified was a "usable" amount.

Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a person previ- ously having been adjudged a ward of the court (Pen. Code, § 29820). On April 3, 2023, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the warrantless search of the vehicle, including the firearm. Defendant argued that there was no probable cause to justify the search. The People opposed the motion.

After a joint preliminary hearing and suppression motion hearing, the magistrate denied the motion. The magistrate reasoned that the police officers had probable cause to search the vehicle because the loose marijuana observed by the officers was "contraband" under Vehicle Code section 23222, subdivision (b).

After defendant was arraigned on the information, defendant renewed the suppression issue in a motion to dismiss under Penal Code section 995. The People filed an opposition, and the trial court denied the motion.

Defendant filed a petition for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition directing that his motion to suppress be granted and that the charges arising from the illegally-obtained evidence be dismissed. After the People filed an informal response, we issued an order to show cause and stayed proceedings in the trial court pending further order of this court. The People filed a written return to the order to show cause, to which defendant replied. We now address the merits.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search of the vehicle. We conclude that the search was supported by probable cause, albeit for reasons different from those given by the trial court.

A. Legal Background

[2–4] The Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) Reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment generally requires obtaining a judicial warrant. (People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1213, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189.) Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable, and therefore illegal, subject only to a few carefully delineated exceptions. (People v. Vasquez (1983) 138 Cal.App.3d 995, 1000, 188 Cal. Rptr. 417; People v. Johnson (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 620, 625, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 103 (Johnson).) The burden is on the People to show that a warrantless search falls within one of those exceptions. (People v. Vasguez, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d at p. 1000, 188 Cal.Rptr. 417.)

[5, 6] "One such exception … is the automobile exception, under which an officer may search a vehicle without a warrant so long as the officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. [Citation.]" (People v. Hall (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 946, 951, 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 793 (Hall).) When police officers have probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband or evidence of criminal activity, even for a minor infraction, they may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which there is. probable cause to believe it may be found. (People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal. App.4th 735, 753, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 323; People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796, 805, 266 Cal.Rptr.3d 650 (McGee).)

[7–12] "Probable cause is a more demanding standard than mere reasonable suspicion. [Citation.] It 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 …. ’ [Citation.]" (Johnson, supra, 50 Cal. App.5th at p. 625, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 103.) As the United States Supreme Court has noted, "probable cause is a fluid conceptturning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." (Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2329 [76 L.Ed.2d 527, 544].) Further, "[a]n officer is entitled to rely on his [or her] training and experience in drawing inferences from the facts he [or she] observes, but those inferences must also ‘be grounded in objective facts and be capable of rational explanation.’ " (United States v. Lopez-Soto (9th Cir. 2000) 205 F.3d 1101, 1105, quoting United States v. Garcia-Camacho (9th Cir. 1995) 53 F.3d 244, 246; accord People v. Carrillo (1995), 37 Cal. App.4th 1662, 1667, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 16.) When considering the validity of the evidence, it is to be analyzed " ‘as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement.’" (Illinois, supra, 462 U.S. at p. 232, 103 S.Ct. at 2329, , quoting United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695 [66 L.Ed.2d 621, 629].) "The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount .. to probable cause." (Ornelas v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661–62, .) As such, we consider the totality of the circumstances, and analyze these facts as would a reasonable police officer, in assessing the officer’s probable cause, rather than looking to singular facts in a vacuum. (See Illinois, at pp. 230–231, 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2328-29, 2332, .)

Before California decriminalized marijuana possession, case authority established that a police officer’s observation of any amount of marijuana in a vehicle established probable cause to search under the automobile exception. (See Johnson, supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at pp. 628-629, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 103, citing People, v Strasburg (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1059-1060, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 306, and People v. Waxler (2014)...