Court Opinion

ID: 9744893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:22:00.488655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:53.074245
License: Public Domain

STONE (W. A.), J., Concurring.
Although my heart agrees with the dissent, my head, and thus my signature, dictate otherwise. I write briefly to explain why in my opinion the dissent erroneously relies on the testimony of Officer Smith to establish suspicious circumstances in order to take the case out of the “mere presence” holding of U.S. v. Soyland (9th Cir. 1993) 3 F.3d 1312, 1314.
The dissent emphasizes Smith’s testimony “that all the occupants of the van ‘lit up cigarettes when [Smith] approached the vehicle.’ ” That testimony, however, occurred at the preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing the defense did not make a motion to suppress, nor did the magistrate proceed as if such a motion had been made. Defense counsel did not argue that any evidence should have been suppressed or that any evidence was inadmissible. Rather, the only issue raised at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing was whether the marijuana discovered was possessed for the purpose of sale. The prosecution contended possession for sale was established by the opinion of Officer Smith, and he based his opinion on the five baggies in which the marijuana was found. Defense counsel contended the use of baggies is not sufficient to support a finding that the substance was possessed for sale. The magistrate bound the case over as charged, noting, “It’s a good argument for the jury but. . . .”
Therefore, the magistrate did not make findings, express or implied, nor was he required to make findings, regarding the legality of the search and seizure of the contraband.
After arraignment in the superior court, defendant made his motion to suppress. The motion was not the renewal of a motion to suppress made at the preliminary hearing. Rather, it was an initial motion to suppress in which the judge was to “receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.” (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (c).) In other words, the superior court was to determine the legality of the search and seizure based on the evidence produced in that court at that hearing. Accordingly, in this instance the prosecution presented evidence in the superior court that encompassed the entire transaction, from the initial stop until the arrest.
*1229“Subdivision (i) of section 1538.5 unambiguously provides that in cases such as the present one, in which no suppression motion was made at the preliminary hearing, the defendant has the right to ‘fully litigate’ the validity of a search or seizure. ... In such cases, the determination of the validity of the search or seizure is made ‘on the basis of the evidence presented at a special hearing’ in the superior court. . . . The statute makes no provision for the admission in evidence of the preliminary hearing transcript in such a case. As we have recounted, the preliminary hearing transcript is not properly considered by the superior court at such a de novo hearing unless the transcript (or portions of it) are formally received in evidence pursuant to stipulation or appropriate exception to the hearsay rule. (People v. Cagle [1971] 21 Cal.App.3d [57] at p. 60 [90 Cal.Rptr. 348].)
“Accordingly, we consider only the evidence adduced at the hearing of the 1538.5 motion in the superior court. (Wilder v. Superior Court [1979] 92 Cal.App.3d [90] at p. 94 [154 Cal.Rptr. 494].)” (People v. Neighbours (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1115, 1119-1120 [273 Cal.Rptr. 32].)
The only testimony at the motion hearing in the superior court regarding cigarette smoking by the occupants of the vehicle occurred on cross-examination of Officer Smith:
“Q Now, the individuals in the car were smoking cigarettes, were they not?
“A Yes, every one of them had a cigarette lit.
“Q Now, you still smelled that [marijuana odor] over and above the smell of cigarettes?
“A Yes, I did.”
Nothing in Officer Smith’s testimony at the suppression hearing indicates when the occupants began to smoke cigarettes or whether they all commenced smoking at about the same time. The record does not reveal whether any or all of the occupants were smoking cigarettes when Smith made the initial stop.
Thus, from the only evidence which both the superior court and we may properly consider, I conclude the record lacks any evidence of a gesture that would suggest criminal conduct or an attempt to conceal contraband.
At the commencement of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the court stated, “The Court has read and considered the motion and the response and *1230has read the preliminary hearing transcript.” However, by those words, the preliminary hearing transcript did not become evidence. There is no hint of a stipulation by the parties that the transcript be evidence.
I conclude the judgment of the superior court must be affirmed.