Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's detention and arrest

Text: Defendant acknowledges that California Highway Patrol officers properly stopped him, initially, for committing the infraction of driving on the shoulder. Nevertheless, defendant contends his subsequent arrest was unlawful because, once he had completed the field sobriety tests, probable cause did not exist to believe he had been driving under the influence. At that point, defendant argues, his detention began to be unduly prolonged and the evidence thereby discoveredБ─■including the body of Terry Gambrel and all the evidence discovered as a resultБ─■must be suppressed. We disagree. The governing law is well settled. An arrest is valid if supported by probable cause. Probable cause to arrest exists if facts known to the arresting officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that an individual is guilty of a crime. ( People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 410, 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610.) The following facts provide ample support for the trial court's ruling that probable cause supported defendant's arrest for driving under the influence. As noted, California Highway Patrol Officer Michael Sterling, accompanied patrol by Sergeant Michael Howard, noticed defendant's car weaving extensively in its lane and saw it go over the fog line. After Officer Sterling activated his red light in an attempt to pull defendant's car over, defendant's car straightened up and reduced its speed to about 30 miles per hour, but did not stop. Even after Officer Sterling activated the pulsating wigwag lights and Sergeant Howard shined a spotlight into defendant's car, defendant continued northbound another quarter of a mile before stopping. Before defendant pulled over, Howard saw him reach into the backseat area of the car, grab a dark cloth object and place it in the right front seat area of the car. Defendant failed to comply with Officer Sterling's order to pull past a roadside guardrail. After defendant emerged from his car and met Sterling between the two vehicles, Sterling noticed defendant's jeans were unbuttoned, except for the top button, at the fly. He also noticed a moderate odor of alcohol emanating from defendant's person. Sterling had defendant walk to the front of defendant's car to perform field sobriety tests. Sterling noticed there was a passenger reclined in the front seat of the car, but did not at that time make contact with him. Following a demonstration by Sterling, defendant performed the modified position-of-attention test, in which the subject, standing with heels and toes together, tilts his head back and closes his eyes, then tries to stand as straight as possible without swaying. Defendant swayed about two inches in a circular motion. Sterling did not consider defendant to have performed that test well. Sterling then demonstrated the next test, in which the subject walks as straight as possible, forward and backward, with heels and toes touching. In performing the test, defendant sidestepped left to right about three inches. Sterling next demonstrated, and defendant performed, a test in which the subject stands on one foot and holds the other foot about six inches off the ground until told to put it down. Defendant performed well standing on his right foot, but allowed his right foot to touch the ground once while standing on his left foot. Finally, Sterling demonstrated, and defendant performed, a hand-pat test, in which one hand is held with the palm up while the other hand is used to slap the palm and then the back of the hand. The hands are rotated and the subject counts while performing the test. Defendant failed to turn his hand over completely during most of the test, contrary to instructions. Taking the tests as a whole, Sterling concluded defendant had failed them. Sterling noticed defendant's eyes were watery, although he had no trouble with his speech. During the testing process, defendant told Sterling he had been drinking with a friend and had had three or four drinks, but he denied being drunk. Based on his observations of defendant and defendant's statements, Sterling concluded defendant had been driving under the influence; Howard shared that opinion. Sterling placed defendant under arrest. While Sterling was conducting the field sobriety tests, Sergeant Howard saw a passenger reclining in the Toyota's front seat. After defendant was arrested and handcuffed, the officers asked him the identity of his passenger to determine whether the car could be released to him. Defendant told Sterling his passenger was a hitchhiker. Howard shined his flashlight into the Toyota's interior to check the position of the passenger's hands. The passenger had a jacket on his lap and his hands were at his sides; he appeared to be asleep. An intact bottle, resembling a beer bottle, was between his feet. A similar bottle, broken and with a foamy residue around it and liquid running from it, lay outside the driver's door. A portion of the passenger's buttocks was visible, his jeans having been pulled very low. As Sterling was putting defendant into the patrol car, Howard tried to rouse the passenger by shouting and knocking on the window. The passenger did not respond. Howard went around to the unlocked driver's door and opened it. He observed a brown pill vial labeled Ativan between the driver's seat and the doorsill, removed it and placed it on the roof of the car. He also removed a folded buck knife from the driver's seat and placed it, likewise, on the roof of the car. Using his flashlight, Howard observed in the backseat a cooler, another pill vial and a leather belt or strap. He tried again to awaken the passenger by shaking his shoulder through his shirt and shouting at him, without receiving a response. Howard went around to the passenger's side and unlocked the door for easier access. Howard again shook him and shouted at him, then checked for vital signs. He detected neither pulse nor respiration, and the pupils did not respond to light. Citing the fact his driving had improved immediately after the Highway Patrol officers activated their red light, defendant argues his arrest for driving under the influence was improper because he was not intoxicated, but merely distracted. He notes his own fly was undone when he was stopped and that Gambrel's genitals were exposed, suggesting masturbation was the reason for his erratic driving. As the Attorney General points out, however, the arresting officers did not discover the condition of Gambrel's body until after defendant was in custody; thus, contrary to defendant's argument, other reasons (besides intoxication) for defendant's poor driving were not immediately apparent. Defendant further contends his performance on the field sobriety tests did not support the conclusion he was under the influence of alcohol, but the opinions of Officer Sterling and Sergeant Howard were to the contrary. We see no evidence in the record that the officers unduly prolonged defendant's detention. Cases cited by defendant, such as People v. McGaughran (1979) 25 Cal.3d 577, 159 Cal.Rptr. 191, 601 P.2d 207, Williams v. Superior Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 349, 213 Cal. Rptr. 919, and People v. Lingo (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 661, 83 Cal.Rptr. 755, in which courts invalidated arrests made after unduly prolonged detentions, are therefore inapposite. Consequently, the trial court, based on the circumstances as a whole, properly could find the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence. It follows that we must reject defendant's derivative contention, based on the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree (see generally Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 484-488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441), that the seizure of his car and its subsequent search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Defendant complains further that Sergeant Howard's seizure of the buck knife and Ativan from defendant's car was improper because, at the time of seizure, probable cause to believe defendant had committed murder was lacking. Defendant notes Howard testified he did not know what Ativan was. We conclude, however, that Howard properly could seize the vial of Ativan because, as he testified at the hearing on the suppression motion, he suspected defendant may have been under the influence of both alcohol and drugs. And the seizure of the knife clearly was proper so that defendant's passenger would not be able to reach it and thereby jeopardize the officers' safety. In any case, the Ativan and knife inevitably would have been discovered once defendant was taken into custody, as the officers would have checked on the passenger to ensure his safety in leaving the scene of the arrest. Their seizure by Sergeant Howard therefore was proper. ( Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377; People v. Superior Court (Tunch ) (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 665, 673, 145 Cal.Rptr. 795.)