SAN FRANCISCO — During a preliminary hearing July 21 in Department 9 of the San Francisco Superior Court, Judge Dawn Payne denied the defense’s motion to suppress evidence and held the accused to answer on six felony counts of possessing various controlled substances for sale. Throughout the hearing, Deputy Public Defender Amy Tao argued that the evidence did not establish a narcotics transaction, that San Francisco Police Department Officer Michael Coss did not observe any exchange of cash, and that his testimony lacked the specialized narcotics expertise necessary to support the prosecution’s theory.
During cross-examination of Officer Coss, DPD Tao asked what was 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 usually consume it in “drops.” DPD Tao clarified that codeine usually comes in pill form, and Officer Coss quickly corrected himself.
When identifying the various substances found on the accused during the search, Officer Coss testified that he used “drugs.com.”
After examining the witness, DPD Tao argued a motion to suppress the evidence and addressed each of the accused’s charges.
DPD Tao argued that Officer Coss did not have sufficient probable cause to justify the investigative detention, search and questioning of the accused. DPD Tao said that before the detention, the accused was driving, never stopped and did not appear hypervigilant. The officer also testified that he did not see the accused transfer any cash and only observed the accused “take something white out of a container.”
“There was nothing else to support this investigative detention,” DPD Tao said.
DPD Tao further argued that after the detention, when the accused was “actually arrested,” there was still insufficient evidence to justify the arrest.
In response, Deputy District Attorney Owen Nelson said the officer observed the accused “pull out suspected narcotics” and argued that fact alone justified both the investigative detention and the subsequent arrest.
Judge Payne ultimately denied the defense’s motion to suppress and asked both attorneys to address the accused’s charges.
DPD Tao again argued that there was “no transaction or sale seen,” that the accused was found with only about $100 in cash, and that the quantity of each narcotic recovered was approximately 2 grams.
Regarding the alleged narcotics, DPD Tao argued that the evidence did not support a charge of possession for sale. She noted that 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 substances had been weighed while still inside their packaging, contending that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to support the charges.
DPD Tao pointed out that the accused was found with three pipes and a plastic straw, concluding that it was reasonable to believe the accused possessed the narcotics for personal use rather than with the intent to sell.
DPD Tao also noted that Officer Coss could not testify to specifics about the narcotics found on the accused, referencing his description of the codeine as coming in “pill form” and as an “opioid type,” as well as the lack of “descriptions of touch, feel, or smell” of the narcotics. DPD Tao likened Officer Coss’ identification of the narcotics to “eyeballing based on the look.”
Finally, DPD Tao pointed out that the day of the hearing was the first time Officer Coss had been qualified as an expert on the specific narcotics involved in the case and argued that his testimony demonstrated a “lack of previous experience.”
DDA Nelson responded that the specific characteristics of the narcotics were less important than the officer’s testimony that there had been an alleged transaction. As for the officer’s qualifications, DDA Nelson argued that the officer’s previous qualifications as an expert in court were not relevant because “that would mean no expert would be qualified,” adding that all experts “have to have a first time.”
DDA Nelson concluded that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the arrest, the variety of narcotics recovered and the location of the alleged transaction provided sufficient evidence to arrest the accused.
Ultimately, Judge Payne ruled that the accused will be held to answer on six felony counts of possession of controlled substances for sale.
The accused’s arraignment is set for 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.
