Court Opinion

ID: 9913329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 19:02:17.587149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:33.439206
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/27/23 P. v. Smith CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,                                                     B327495

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. MA083136)
           v.

 TYREE TAMARIE SMITH,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Emily J. Cole, Judge. Affirmed.
      Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
             __________________________________________
      After sheriff’s deputies stopped appellant Tyree Tamarie
Smith for traffic offenses, a deputy saw the handle of a firearm
protruding from under the front passenger seat. Smith was
arrested. He moved to suppress evidence, arguing that the
search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. (Pen. Code,
§ 1538.5.)1
      We conclude that there was probable cause to search. A
deputy first saw a grocery bag of marijuana on the back seat,
then a firearm on the floorboard. These “plain view” sightings
furnished probable cause to believe the car contained evidence of
a crime, justifying a complete search of every compartment. We
affirm the order denying Smith’s motion to suppress evidence.
                              FACTS
      Around midnight on April 26, 2022, Los Angeles County
Deputy Sheriff Joshua Friedman was on patrol with a partner in
Palmdale when he saw a car traveling with very dark tinted
windows and no front license plate, two Vehicle Code violations.
The driver turned without signaling, another offense.
      Friedman pulled the car over and ordered that the windows
be lowered because the tint prevented the deputies from seeing
inside. He smelled a strong odor of burned marijuana from 15 to
20 feet away and saw a large marijuana-filled grocery bag on the
back seat, marijuana in multiple sandwich bags, and unused
sandwich bags. On the driver’s side floor was a glass jar with
marijuana. In body camera footage, Friedman’s partner asks,
“How much marijuana do you have in the car? It reeks.”
      Friedman asked Smith, the driver, for identification.
Saying he was nervous, Smith produced an EBT card. Friedman

      1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                    2
instructed Smith to get out of the car. When the door opened,
Friedman saw Smith’s license and a firearm laser sight in the
driver’s cupholder. Patting Smith down for weapons, Friedman
found a “large wad of cash” totaling $940 in his front pocket. He
detained Smith for a narcotics investigation and placed him in
the patrol car.
       Smith’s passenger, Tamon Bell, began to struggle with
Friedman’s partner. As Friedman ran to help, Bell broke free
and fled. Friedman debated whether to give chase but decided
not to do so because he had already detained Smith.
       Friedman looked into the front passenger area of Smith’s
car through the open door. From the curb, he saw the butt of a
firearm sticking out from under the passenger seat. He radioed
his partner that the person he was chasing could be armed.
Friedman checked the firearm, which was a loaded “ghost gun”
with no serial number. Friedman then searched the car and
found a scale, a laser attachment for a firearm, and marijuana.
He found no burned remnants of marijuana and did not perform
sobriety tests.
                    PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Smith was charged with (1) possession of a firearm by a
felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)); (2) possession of a concealed firearm
in a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1)); (3) carrying a loaded firearm
in a vehicle (§ 25850, subd. (a)); and (4) unlawful possession of
ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)). It was further alleged that he
has a prior conviction. (§§ 667, 1170.12.) He pleaded not guilty.
       Smith moved to suppress evidence. He challenged the
admissibility of the firearm, ammunition, and laser attachment,
arguing that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated his
Fourth Amendment rights.

                                    3
      The trial court denied the motion. It found that the initial
stop was lawful due to Vehicle Code violations. Smelling
marijuana and seeing it in plain view was sufficient to detain
Smith. When the passenger fled, Friedman moved to the
passenger side and saw the gun handle in plain view, furnishing
probable cause to search the entire vehicle.
      After the court denied his motion to suppress, Smith
entered a plea bargain. He pleaded no contest to count one. The
court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on probation
for two years with two days in jail, and imposed fines and fees.
He appeals.
                               DISCUSSION
      1. Appeal and Review
      Appeal is taken from the judgment following Smith’s no
contest plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress.
“Review on appeal may be obtained by the defendant provided
that at some stage of the proceedings prior to conviction he or she
has moved for . . . the suppression of the evidence.” (§ 1538.5,
subd. (m); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(A).)
      “ ‘ “The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling
on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial
court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by
substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so
found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.” ’ ” (People
v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013, 1053.)
      2. Fourth Amendment Rule on Vehicle Searches
      The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant is
generally required before police conduct a search. (People v.

                                     4
Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 359 (Lopez).) Automobiles are an
exception to the general rule, owing to their mobility and their
reduced expectation of privacy. (California v. Carney (1985) 471
U.S. 386, 390–392.) If police have probable cause to believe that
a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity
or contraband, they “ ‘may conduct a warrantless search of any
area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’ ”
(People v. Sims (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 943, 950–951.)
        Appellant recognizes that police may search an automobile
without a warrant. The question is whether there is (1) a
reasonable suspicion the driver violated the law and (2) “probable
cause to search [because] the known facts and circumstances are
sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief
that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” (Ornelas v.
United States (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 696, 699–700 [officers
searched door panels and found cocaine after stopping a driver on
suspicion of drug trafficking because his car had California
license plates in Wisconsin, in winter].)
        If probable cause exists, officers may “ ‘conduct a probing
search of compartments and containers within the vehicle whose
contents are not in plain view.’ ” (People v. McGee (2020) 53
Cal.App.5th 796, 801, quoting United States v. Ross (1982) 456
U.S. 798, 800.) This is true even if the traffic stop was for an
infraction, not an arrestable offense. (McGee, at p. 805.)
        3. The Search of Smith’s Car Was Lawful
        Smith does not contest that he was lawfully stopped for
Vehicle Code violations, observing that traffic laws give officers
“ ‘fifteen hundred reasons to pull you over.’ ” He argues only that
Friedman lacked probable cause to search the vehicle. We
conclude that there was probable cause to search.

                                    5
       A. Search of Driver’s Door
       Smith contends that a search began before his passenger
fled. He points to body camera images in which Friedman
touched the inside of the driver’s door. Seven seconds later,
passenger Bell struggled with Friedman’s partner and fled.
Friedman looked into the front passenger area and saw a gun on
the floorboard. Friedman’s initial actions did not invalidate his
later discovery of the gun.
       When Friedman asked for a driver’s license, Smith
provided a debit card. As Smith opened the door and got out of
the car, Friedman saw identification in a cup holder, along with a
laser firearm attachment.2 He placed Smith in the patrol car and
went to confirm that it was Smith’s license.
       A driver must possess a license and present it when asked
by police. (Veh. Code, §§ 12500, 12951.) There are limits on
police searches for a license during a traffic stop. For example, in
Lopez, supra, 8 Cal.5th 353, a driver in a traffic investigation
denied having a license. An officer searching for identification
found Lopez’s purse on the passenger seat, opened it, and found
methamphetamine. (Id. at p. 357.) Citing privacy concerns, our
Supreme Court deemed the search of the purse unlawful. Police
need not employ “the least intrusive means” of achieving
objectives but must justify “a substantial intrusion on personal
privacy” and not “ ‘rummage at will among a person’s private
effects’ ” for a traffic violation. (Id. at pp. 374–375.)
       Unlike Lopez, supra, 8 Cal.5th 353, Friedman did not open
a bag or rummage through private effects to find something
hidden from view. He saw the license in a cupholder and

      2 The video does not clearly show what, exactly, Friedman
saw when he shined a flashlight into the car.

                                    6
examined it to ascertain the driver’s identity without intruding
on Smith’s privacy. “Plain view” rules apply here. (Harris v.
United States (1968) 390 U.S. 234, 236 [officers could seize a
robbery victim’s registration card “plainly visible” through the
open door of defendant’s car].)
      B. Marijuana Odor Alone Did Not Precipitate a
      Search
      Smith cites Proposition 64, which allows possession of up to
28.5 grams (one ounce) of cannabis. (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11362.1.) Because marijuana possession is lawful, Smith
reasons, deputies had no right to search his car merely because
they smelled it. (People v. Johnson (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 620,
634 [odor of marijuana alone is not an inference that a car
contains contraband].) It is, however, illegal to smoke cannabis
while driving. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.3, subd. (a)(7).)
      Here, there was more than the mere odor of marijuana. As
Friedman approached Smith’s car, he smelled burned marijuana.
He saw a grocery bag of marijuana on the back seat, sandwich
bags of marijuana, and marijuana in a jar at Smith’s feet. A
reasonable officer could deduce that (1) Smith was smoking
marijuana while driving, (2) the amount of marijuana in the car
far exceeded the 28.5 grams allowed by law, and (3) the baggies of
marijuana were intended for sale. Moreover, Smith said he was
nervous; Friedman found a wad of cash in his pocket during a
weapons check; and Smith’s passenger acted suspiciously by
fighting a deputy and then fleeing.
      The totality of the circumstances gave probable cause to
search Smith’s car. (People v. Moore (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 291,
299, 302 [odor of marijuana plus nervous, evasive behavior
reasonably caused an officer to believe a vehicle contained more

                                   7
marijuana than the law allows].) Given the grocery bag of
marijuana in plain view and the wad of cash in Smith’s pocket,
Friedman began a narcotics investigation, reasonably believing
the car contained evidence of a crime, i.e., an unlawful quantity
of marijuana. (Ibid; People v. Castro (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 314,
320–321 [smell of marijuana in a parked car with expired
registration tags justified a search that uncovered a loaded gun
because the car’s occupants were minors, who are not allowed to
possess any amount of marijuana].)
      C. Discovery of a Partially Concealed Firearm
      Justified a Search
      When Tamon Bell began to fight with Friedman’s partner,
Friedman ran to help, on the passenger side of the car. Bell fled,
pursued by the deputy. Friedman looked into the passenger area
and saw a gun handle in plain view. The trial court found that
the weapon furnished probable cause to search the entire vehicle.
The court was correct.
      It is illegal to possess a concealed gun in a vehicle.
(§ 25400, subd. (a)(1).) Once Friedman saw a gun on the
floorboard, he could search Smith’s vehicle because there was an
objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. (Ornelas v.
United States, supra, 517 U.S. at p. 696.) Though the initial stop
was for infractions, when Friedman saw evidence of an arrestable
offense he could conduct a search of compartments within the
vehicle, even if the contents are not in plain view. (People v.
McGee, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at pp. 801, 805; United States v.
Ross, supra, 456 U.S. at p. 800.)
      In the course of a search based on probable cause to believe
a crime was committed, Friedman would have inevitably found
Smith’s license, laser gun attachment, and ammunition, in

                                   8
addition to the gun. Thus, even if Friedman’s initial examination
of the driver’s door was unwarranted, any evidence he saw there
need not be suppressed. (Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431,
441–444 [inevitable discovery rule].) The trial court did not err
by denying Smith’s motion to suppress: The search and seizure
meet the rule of reasonableness. (United States v. Knights (2001)
534 U.S. 112, 118–119; People v. Fayed (2020) 9 Cal.5th 147,
182.)
                          DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                         LUI, P. J.
We concur:

     ASHMANN-GERST, J.

     HOFFSTADT, J.

                                   9