SAN FRANCISCO — Judge Dawn Payne denied a defense motion to suppress evidence Tuesday after the defense argued San Francisco police lacked probable cause to detain and arrest the accused and failed to establish evidence of narcotics sales. Following a preliminary hearing in Department 9 of the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Payne held the accused to answer on six felony counts of possession of various controlled substances for sale.
Throughout the hearing, Deputy Public Defender Amy Tao argued the accused’s conduct did not indicate a narcotics transaction and emphasized that San Francisco Police Officer Michael Coss never observed an exchange of cash. Tao also argued the accused did not appear “hyper-vigilant” during the incident and contended Officer Coss’ testimony demonstrated a lack of critical narcotics expertise.
During cross-examination, DPD Tao asked Officer Coss what would be considered a typical amount of the various narcotics found in the case for personal use. Officer Coss responded, “It depends on the user’s tolerance.”
When asked what form codeine typically comes in, Officer Coss said users generally consume it in “drops.” DPD Tao clarified that codeine usually comes in pill form, prompting Officer Coss to quickly correct himself.
When identifying the various substances recovered from the accused, Officer Coss testified that he used “drugs.com.”
Following Officer Coss’ testimony, DPD Tao argued a motion to suppress the evidence and addressed each of the charges against the accused.
DPD Tao argued Officer Coss lacked sufficient probable cause to justify an investigative detention to stop, search and question the accused. She argued that before the detention, the accused was driving continuously, never stopped and did not appear hypervigilant. Tao further noted that Officer Coss testified he never saw the accused exchange cash and only observed the accused “take something white out of a container.”
“There was nothing else to support this investigative detention,” DPD Tao argued.
DPD Tao further contended that even after the detention, when the accused was “actually arrested,” officers still lacked sufficient evidence to justify the arrest.
Deputy District Attorney Owen Nelson responded that Officer Coss observed the accused “pull out suspected narcotics” and argued that observation alone provided sufficient justification for both the investigative detention and the subsequent arrest.
Judge Payne denied the defense motion to suppress and then heard argument on whether the evidence was sufficient to hold the accused to answer.
DPD Tao again emphasized that there was “no transaction or sale seen,” that the accused possessed only about $100 in cash, and that each narcotic recovered weighed approximately 2 grams.
Addressing the narcotics evidence, DPD Tao argued the prosecution failed to establish possession for sale. She noted the substances included approximately 2.2 grams of cocaine base, 0.3 grams of cocaine hydrochloride and 2.7 grams of suspected fentanyl, from which 0.116 grams had been removed for testing. Tao further emphasized that the screening test on the suspected fentanyl returned a negative result and that the narcotics had been weighed while still inside their packaging, arguing the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to support the charges.
DPD Tao also pointed out that the accused possessed three pipes and a plastic straw, arguing it was reasonable to conclude the narcotics were intended for personal use rather than for sale.
She further argued that Officer Coss could not testify to important details about the narcotics, citing his mistaken description of codeine and his characterization of it as an “opioid type,” along with the lack of testimony regarding the “touch, feel, or smell” of the substances. DPD Tao characterized Officer Coss’ identification of the narcotics as “eyeballing based on the look.”
Finally, DPD Tao argued that the hearing marked the first time Officer Coss had been qualified as an expert on the specific narcotics involved in the case and contended his testimony reflected a “lack of previous experience.”
DDA Nelson responded that the specific characteristics of the narcotics were less significant than Officer Coss’ testimony describing what he believed was a narcotics transaction. Regarding the officer’s qualifications, Nelson argued prior qualification as an expert was not required because “that would mean no expert would be qualified,” adding that all experts “have to have a first time.”
Nelson argued that the totality of the circumstances—including the alleged transaction, the variety of narcotics recovered and the location where the incident occurred—provided sufficient probable cause for the arrest and supported the charges of possession for sale.
Judge Payne ultimately found sufficient evidence to hold the accused to answer on all six felony counts of possession of controlled substances for sale, rejecting the defense’s arguments that police lacked probable cause and that the evidence supported personal use rather than sales.
The accused is scheduled to be arraigned Aug. 4, 2026, in Department 21 of the San Francisco Superior Court.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
