By Samantha Brill
On October 19, 2016, Karleigh Jennine Lopez consented to a search of her person and belongings while in the lobby of the Yolo County Jail at 9:20am. The defendant was said to have been there to pick up her friend, however, her friend was later found to have already been released earlier that morning.
Sheriff’s Deputy Jose Pineda conducted the search and found three baggies of methamphetamine, 8.5 grams of heroin, and 1.65 grams of marijuana inside the defendant’s purse. Also found on her person: a meth pipe, a small electronic scale in the purse, and an additional baggie of methamphetamine.
Ms. Lopez is being charged with six counts. count 1: Health & Safety Code section 11378, possession for sale of controlled substance; count 2: possession of drug paraphernalia in jail; count 3: possession of drugs in jail; count 4: Health and Safety Code section 11351, possession of controlled substance (heroin) for sale or purchase; count 5: a charge that was not clearly heard in court; and count 6: Health & Safety Code section 11364, possession of pipe or paraphernalia for use with a controlled substance. Count 4, possession of the heroin for sale, had not originally been charged at the time of the arrest. The deputy DA motioned to amend count 4 to include “sale,” and the judge approved her motion. The defense then submitted to counts 1, 5, and 6.
After the lunch break, the preliminary hearing for Ms. Lopez’s case began. Judge Daniel P. Maguire presided over this case, and called for the People to bring their first witness to the stand. The People called the arresting officer, Deputy Pineda, to the stand.
Deputy Pineda explained that his probable cause to approach the defendant in the jail lobby was because the car she was riding in with a friend to the jail had a broken windshield. Deputy Pineda explained that he approached the two women to inform them that this was a hazard.
The witness then went on to ask the defendant if she was on probation or if she had anything illegal on her. Deputy Pineda explained that the defendant said no to the first question, and yes to the second, that she had a little bit of marijuana on her. This is when he asked permission to conduct a search of the defendant’s person. Ms. Lopez agreed, however she failed to realize that this search included her purse, and she became defensive and resistant when the deputy tried to look through her purse.
This was when the multiple drugs and drug paraphernalia were found. Ms. Lopez was then placed under arrest, which was met with some resistance.
For the defense’s cross-examination, Ms. Lopez’s counsel, Deputy Public Defender Richard Van Zandt, took over the line of questioning, inquiring about the warning signs that are posted at the entrance of the jail parking lot.
The witness explained that the signs say something regarding any drugs brought into the jail with the intent to deliver them to an inmate is in violation of the law. Mr. Van Zandt then argued that this sign could be interpreted in a way that states, if you don’t intend to deliver drugs to an inmate, then it is okay to have drugs in the jail.
The defense then explored the definition of jail. Dep. Pineda explained that the jail included a secure area that inmates occupy. He said that it would include the lobby and the parking lot, because inmates typically partake in custodial work while being supervised in these areas.
Deputy Pineda was then excused and the People called their last witness to the stand, Officer Jeff Moe of the Woodland Police Department. Officer Moe was established as an expert witness in the area of narcotics and contraband.
Officer Moe testified that it is typical that users are dealers as well, in order to sustain their habit. He said that, because the defendant was carrying her drugs in several different bags along with a scale, she had the intent of selling the drugs. He also explained that, with the amount of drugs she had, it was enough for several hundreds of doses of meth and about 80 doses of heroin.
The witness based his knowledge and opinion of dosage sizes from internet searches, but said it was more heavily based on information acquired from drug addicts.
The defense then took over and gave Officer Moe several hypothetical situations, varying in drug type and drug weight. For example, he suggested situations involving finding .8 grams of marijuana on a person and comparing that to finding .8 grams of heroin on a person. All hypothetical situations led to the witness stating that he would assume that, in a situation involving any amount and any drug, he would be led to suspect the intent to sell.
Mr. Van Zandt also asked the witness to google search some of the internet sources he has used to base his background knowledge of dosage sizes, resulting in the witness not being able to find any such site.
Going back and forth, Officer Moe and Mr. Van Zandt had a difficult time understanding each other. The witness kept stating that any amount of drug can be sold and that usually in real situations something presents itself that further indicates the intent to sell.
The defense rested and the People went on to make their argument, stating that probable cause was proven for the search to happen. On count 4, the prosecution said they have brought forth enough evidence that suggests intent to sell, along with other evidence justifying counts 3 and 2.
The defense then made their argument by attesting that, according to statutes defining what is jail and a secured area, the law does not include the lobby or the parking lot of the jail – that the jail starts in the booking area. Mr. Van Zandt also stated that Officer Moe had a baseless testimony, failing to back up his opinions.
Judge Maguire then interjected, ruling that the statutes mentioned are very liberal, so for this case the lobby will count as the jail. However, he did admit that Officer Moe was “a bit of a black box” and agreed that he was unable to give evidence to back up his testimony.
Furthermore, there was enough evidence presented for the deputy having strong suspicion, and the judge retained a holding order on all counts, keeping bail at $100,000. The case will reconvene on December 2 at 8:30am in Department 10 for an arraignment. The People are still deciding on a plea offer for Ms. Lopez, to potentially settle outside of court.
