WOODLAND, CA – A motion to suppress heard here in Yolo County Superior Court this week was denied by Judge David Rosenberg despite arguments from Deputy Public Defender Kumar Sankara that the search conducted by law enforcement was a violation of the accused’s 4th Amendment rights.
The accused was charged on Jan. 4 with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and two infractions, registration displayed for the wrong vehicle and an unregistered vehicle.
Officer Lawrence Turner testified they originally pulled the accused over for a brake light that was out. After requesting license and registration, Turner noticed a discrepancy between the registration and the tag on the license plate, and told the accused to exit the vehicle and proceeded to pat him down.
During this pat down, the officer felt an object in the accused’s pocket. The officer inquired about the object and sought permission to retrieve it. The accused declined to give consent.
During cross-examination the defense noted that after the officer did not obtain consent he continued to pat the defendant’s pocket for approximately 30 seconds. The officer denied this, at which point DPD Sankara showed body camera footage of the officer continuing to pat the accused down after consent was denied.
Officer Turner retrieved the object from the accused’s pocket without his consent, charged the defense, adding the officer also searched the accused’s other pocket, where he felt something that seemed to be a bag.
The defense argued that this was beyond the scope of a “Terry stop and frisk” because the officer did not identify anything resembling a weapon in this pocket.
Deputy District Attorney Rachel Meyers argued the bag seized was admissible under the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which allows officers to stop and frisk.
The DDA said according to Terry v. Ohio the officer was allowed to retrieve the object from the accused’s pockets due to the shape, design, or manner it was being carried.
The manner in which it was carried was simply in the accused’s pocket. DPD Sankara argued the object had to be immediately identifiable as a weapon in order to continue beyond the pat down search to retrieve the contents of the accused pockets.
The defense said it was apparent the officer did not immediately think there was a weapon in the accused’s pocket because Officer Turner continued to ask the accused what was in his pocket, demonstrating the officer didn’t immediately know it was a weapon.
Despite this, the defense noted to the court, Turner searched not only the pocket he suspected held a weapon, but also another pocket where he felt only what seemed to be a bag. It was in that pocket that he found what he believed to be a controlled substance.
The defense argued there wasn’t probable cause to go into the accused’s pocket in the first instance and there was certainly no cause to go into the accused’s other pocket.
Judge Rosenberg denied this motion to suppress, finding there were no infringements of the accused’s 4th Amendment rights.
Judge Rosenberg reasoned there were “red flags” throughout the stop, such as the expired registration that provided the searching officer with probable cause, despite the defense argument those minor discrepancies had no bearing on whether a weapon was present or that there was any inherent danger in this stop.
