1

Filed 8/ 23/21 P. v. Fix CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Mono)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM EVERETTE FIX,

Defendant and Appellant. C092615

(Super. Ct. No. MFE19000946)

A jury found defendant William Everette Fix guilty of vandalism. Defendant
contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because he was

arrested in his home wi thout a warrant. Defendant asserts pictures of his clothing,
particularly his jacket, sh ould have been suppressed

. We conclude defendant forfeited
the suppression issue by failing to raise it in the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Early one evening

, bus driver Stefani Starnater finished her bus route

. Defendant

tried to board the bus. S tarnater told defendant he would have to wait for the night
trolley . Defendant became angry and Starnater closed the bus door. Starnater saw

defendant throw a bag , which hit and broke the bus window.2

Starnater was acquainted with defendant

. She identified defendant

, by name and
through a photo of defendant

, as the person who broke the bus window

. Subseq uently, Mammoth Lakes Officer Richard Marchant spoke with defendant at

his home. Without a warrant, Officer Marchant arrested defendant.

Defendant filed a m otion to s uppress under Penal Code 1 section 1538.5, in which
he sought to quash his arrest and suppress “all evidence, specifically statements made by him, [and] observations made by the officer after the illegal detention.”
At the hearing on the motion, the trial judge viewed footage from Officer

Marchant’s body cam era

. The record ing shows d efendant st anding in the doorway of his
partially open wooden French doors while talking to Officer Marchant . Defendant
occupied the space between the closed door and the open door. W hen defendant tried the

close his door

, the o fficer told defendant he w as under arrest. The o fficer used his arm to
stop the door from closing

, grabbed defendant’s arm , guided him out of the home

, and

arrested him

. The trial court denied the motion , concluding defendant was voluntarily exposed

in the threshold of his door way and the arrest began when the officer was outside the

house . The trial court found p ursuant to United States v. Vaneaton (9 th Cir. 1995)

49 F.3d 1423 and United States v. Santana (1976) 427 U.S. 38 [49 L.Ed.2d 300]

, the

arrest did not violate the Unit ed States C onstitution.

DISCUSSION

The constitutional protection against violation of the right of the people to be
secure in their persons and houses against unreasonable seizures applies to arrests within

the home

. ( U.S. Const. , 4th Amend

. ; Cal. Const.

, art. I
, § 13; People v. Ramey (1976)

16 Cal.3d 263, 275

- 276.) “[T]he lack of an arrest warrant does not invalidate defendant ’ s

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

arrest

. . . . It would require suppression solely of evidence obtained from searching the

home at the time of the arrest. ” ( People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 569 .) A

def endant may test the unreasonableness of a search or seizure through the procedures
provided in section 1538.5. A defendant’s suppression motion must be made in writing and must specifically
list the items of property or evidence sought to be suppressed. (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(2).) In defendant’s written motion, he specifically sought the suppression of “statements made by him, observations made by the officer after the illegal detention.” At the hearing on the motion, defendant requested suppression of “any thing that happens” after the arrest.
On appeal, d efendant contends evidence of his clothing, particularly his jacket, should
have been suppressed. The issue of s uppression of evidence of the jacket was never

raised in the trial court. As a result, it w as forfeited. (§ 1538.5, subd. (m); s ee also
People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4 th 119, 136 ; People v. Davis (2008) 168 Cal.App.4 th
617, 629.) Accordingly, w e need not determine whether the trial court ’ s suppression
ruling was in error.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ Robie, J. We concur:

/s/ Blease, Acting P. J.

/s/ Renner, J.