By Ryan Gonzales
Judge Samuel T. McAdam, in the case of the People v. Lawrence Ledesma, set a date when he will deliver his decision on the defense’s motion to suppress evidence. The court heard testimony on the motion, questioning whether evidence was legally obtained, on December 2, 2016.
Mr. Ledesma was with two other individuals at a local Woodland gas station on March 11, 2016, when he was approached by Officer “V.”
Officer V testified to the court that, when he arrived at the gas station, Mr. Ledesma seemed uneasy about an object located in his front sweater pocket, which created suspicion as he approached Mr. Ledesma and the two other individuals.
When the prosecution asked why he had approached them, Officer V stated that he had recognized the male individual due to a past drug offense. Then, “KH,” the wife of Mr. Ledesma, was present at the incident and stated to Officer V that she was on probation, thus she was procedurally searched for any possible illegal items.
However, Officer V remained suspicious of the object located in Mr. Ledesma’s pocket and testified to the court that he believed that the object looked like a possible weapon. Thus, Officer V stated that he searched Mr. Ledesma’s person and found a lockbox and a cellphone case with a pipe protruding out.
“There was a glass pipe with an off-white crystalized substance,” stated Officer V. Consequently, Officer V placed Mr. Ledesma under arrest, due to the possibility of an illegal substance in the pipe.
Following the arrest, Officer V noticed the lockbox was not locked, so he opened it and found methamphetamine. As a result, Mr. Ledesma was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
During the cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Daniel Hutchinson inquired about the steps that occurred prior to Mr. Ledesma’s arrest.
Mr. Hutchinson questioned whether there was another officer present at the scene, and Officer V testified that Officer Woods had arrived shortly after he had approached the three individuals.
Mr. Hutchinson then questioned whether he had asked Officer Woods for any legal advise, and Officer V testified that he did not remember.
Furthermore, Officer V stated that he did not remember asking Mr. Ledesma’s consent to search his person, but testified that he “most likely” had asked.
Mr. Hutchinson then inquired if the officer had squeezed the case contacting the meth pipe, and Officer V testified that he simply saw the exposed pipe and confirmed it by opening up the case.
However, during the video and audio playback captured from Officer V’s patrol vehicle camera, Officer V simply stated, “This feels like a pipe to me,” thus the defense assumed that the pipe wasn’t exposed and asked Officer V again, saying that he must have squeezed or manipulated the case, to which he responded, “I did.”
When Mr. Ledesma took the witness stand, he testified to the court that he told Officer V that he was not on probation, thus he could not be searched. At that point, Mr. Ledesma testified that Officer V went to talk to Officer Woods and, when Officer V returned, he told the defendant that he was going to be searched for weapons.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ledesma, Officer V had turned off the portion of audio up to the point where he stated, “I’m going to search you for weapons.”
Judge McAdam has set final arguments and decision on the motion for Dec. 16, 2016.
