Opinion ID: 1174273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant consented to the search in which the officer discovered marijuana in defendant's automobile.

Text: On October 18, 1967, about 8:40 a.m., Officer Pruden of the Mountain View Police Department noticed an automobile parked by a vacant field with something bunched up in the front seat. He went to the car and rapped on the window, waking defendant. Defendant explained that he had been out late the previous night and had slept in the car to avoid disturbing the person with whom he was staying. Defendant said that he had borrowed the car from a friend; the officer then checked whether the car had been reported stolen, finding that it had not been so reported. When the officer asked defendant for identification, he replied that he had lost his wallet, producing, instead, a California Employment Office card bearing his name. The officer asked for further identification; defendant asserted that letters bearing his name were in the trunk of the car. Defendant and the officer then went to the rear of the car, and defendant opened the trunk. According to Officer Pruden, defendant removed an article that resembled a shoe box without a lid, handed it to him, and said, The papers are in here. You can take whatever you want. The officer removed some envelopes carrying defendant's name; within the box he saw a brown paper bag. Taking out the bag he began to open it, asking defendant, What is in here? Defendant answered, Just some personal things. Nothing that will have my name on it. Simultaneously, however, the officer had opened the bag sufficiently to observe two clear plastic packets containing marijuana. Defendant's testimony, not surprisingly, differed from that of the officer. Defendant testified that the officer ordered him to open the trunk and threatened to arrest him if he failed to produce further identification. Defendant attested that he then did open the trunk, removed a letter from the box, and handed the letter to the officer, who thereupon examined it. The officer then took other letters from the box and began searching through its contents. He picked up the paper bag and asked, What's in this? Defendant replied, Some of my shaving gear. The officer then opened the bag and saw the marijuana. (2) The resolution of this conflict between the testimony of defendant and that of Officer Pruden must rest with the superior court. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (c).) (3) A proceeding under section 1538.5 to suppress evidence is one in which a full hearing is held on the issues before the superior court sitting as a finder of fact. ( People v. Heard (1968) 266 Cal. App.2d 747, 749 [72 Cal. Rptr. 374].) As the trier of fact, the superior court adjudges the credibility of the witnesses. (See Witkin, Cal. Criminal Procedures (1963) § 683.) Officer Pruden's testimony indicates that defendant consented to the search of the box and all of its contents, and that defendant did not withdraw this consent until the officer discovered the marijuana. By denying the motion to suppress, the superior court impliedly found this testimony to be true (Evid. Code, § 402, subd. (c)). Concluding that the seizure of the marijuana by Officer Pruden did not violate defendant's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, we must next determine the validity of defendant's conviction, which rested upon a plea bargain.