Source: https://www.greghillassociates.com/what-is-the-law-on-challenging-the-search-of-a-vehicle.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:04:40+00:00

Document:
A common fact pattern is that police make a traffic stop and then search the car without a warrant, finding drugs, drug paraphernalia, a firearm, ammunition, alcohol or stolen items. Our office is then called to defend the owner of the items found, or the owner of the car.
How does one go about challenging the admissibility of such evidence, hopefully to have a judge issue an order suppressing it under Penal Code § 1538.5?
The first step in our analysis is wanting to know the reason for the traffic stop? Was it a legal stop or pretextual because the officer had a hunch that the car would contain contraband? It is good to keep in mind that if an officer does not observe any violation of the law, he may not make a traffic stop. Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806. Even if such driving were deemed unusual, an officer may not make a traffic stop simply based upon unusual driving. Taylor v. DMV (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 812 (the officer’s subjective belief that a suspect’s driving is unusual is insufficient to support a traffic stop).
Depending upon the reason for the stop, different standards will apply. If it is found that the traffic stop was illegal, then the “fruit of the poisonous tree” would be suppressed. Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471.
Assuming the traffic stop was legal, the next step is finding out if the warrantless search was consensual. If the vehicle owner permitted the search, obviously all grounds for fighting the search are limited unless the officers exceeded the scope of the consent.
If the owner of the car did not consent to the warrantless search, the next analysis is whether the suspect had a reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in certain areas of the car, either because of his status or because of the area searched. People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 254 n.3, 96 Cal.Rptr.682. One’s status may be of a probationer or parolee.
9. Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98, 65 L.Ed. 2d 633, 100 S. Ct. 2556 (no expectation of privacy in goods put in another’s purse).

References: § 1538
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.