By Samantha Brill
On the morning of May 15, 2016, Susan Ann Henderson was at Cache Creek Indian Casino around 9am with two of her friends. After the police were called to respond to a separate event caused by her friend, “Ms. S,” who drove Ms. Henderson to the casino, they proceeded to search Ms. Henderson.
The officer responding to the call and conducting the search was Sheriff’s Deputy Jose Pineda, along with Sergeant Mike Glaser, who was there for officer security. During the search of Ms. Henderson, Deputy Pineda found a baggie of what appeared to be methamphetamine. This led to Ms. Henderson’s arrest and her being charged with possession of an illegal substance.
The defense was moving to suppress the evidence due to an non-consensual search of Ms. Henderson done by Dep. Pineda.
The People brought Dep. Pineda to the stand, where he was questioned as he explained the events of the morning leading up to the arrest.
Then the defense conducted cross-examination and asked Dep. Pineda to explain how he first made contact with Ms. Henderson. The deputy explained that he first was talking alone outside with the defendant’s friend, Ms. S. She explained to him that she had come to the casino after previously using methamphetamine, along with two other friends who were inside.
After that, Dep. Pineda went inside to find the friends, while Sgt. Glaser arrived and waited outside with Ms. S by her car. Pineda was unable to find Ms. S’s friends inside, so he then turned around to come back outside. This is when he saw that her friends were already making their way back into the car, and this is when he made first contact with the defendant.
Dep. Pineda explained that he asked, in a calm tone of voice, the defendant to get out of the car, and then asked for her I.D. and whether she was on probation. He then proceeded to ask her if he could search her for drugs and she replied yes. However, he explained that he never told her she could leave – but he also never told her she had to stay.
The People then took over the line of questioning, making sure that Dep. Pineda was clear, that, yes, he spoke calmly and relaxed, and the defendant never asked to leave. Also, he asserted that the car was turned off when he approached it.
The People’s next witness was Sgt. Glaser, the officer who was there as support and protection for Dep. Pineda if he needed it. The People asked about the sergeant’s interactions with everyone during all these events. He stated that he waited with Ms. S when Dep. Pineda went inside the casino and while Pineda searched Ms. Henderson. Also, he said that he held the baggie of meth while Pineda continued the search. However, he did not write a report on the event, because he was not involved and did not have to pull out his weapon.
The defense then continued with the cross, asking if Sgt. Glaser ever spoke to Ms. S and he responded by stating, “Yes, but only small talk.” During Pineda’s interactions with Ms. Henderson, Glaser was standing about five to ten feet away. With that, Sgt. Glaser was excused and the People were finished with their witnesses.
The defense then called their witness to the stand, Ms. Henderson. The defendant now had the opportunity to tell her side of the event. She explained that, after exiting the casino, she lay down in the back of Ms. S’s car, then Dep. Pineda told her he needed her to get out of the car, as he updated her on the situation with Ms. S.
According to the defendant Dep. Pineda then conducted his search. Ms. Henderson explained that he told her he needed to search her and for her to put her hands on the car. Expressing to the court that she did not feel like she was able to leave the situation, she said also that he never asked for permission to search her. She also explained that she asked Dep. Pineda why he was conducting this search, and he never responded.
The People then conducted cross-examination by asking about Ms. Henderson’s previous convictions. The defendant explained that she had previously been convicted of possession and possession for sale of an illegal substance. The People also asked if the deputy had threatened her with any weapons, and she said no. Also, the defendant confirmed that Dep. Pineda never asked her to stay around while he finished talking to Ms. S.
The People also determined that Ms. Henderson was under the influence of meth the night prior, and that she had had a few drinks at the casino that morning, which could have left her still under the influence during the time of the event.
The defense then clarified that Ms. Henderson has a good recollection of the event and that nothing was affecting her memory. Ms. Henderson was then excused.
The defense then called Deputy Pineda back to the stand, who testified that Ms. Henderson did not appear to be under the influence, showing no symptoms. However, he said that she had admitted that the meth in her pocket was hers.
The defense and the People rested, and the judge considered the motion to suppress.
The judge’s decision was that, because of Ms. Henderson’s previous convictions, Deputy Pineda was the more credible witness in this case. After hearing both sides, he determined that the search was done with the consent of Ms. Henderson, meaning that the search of her person was legal and the motion by the defense to suppress was denied.
The trial is expected to start November 3, 2016, at 8:30am.
