Judge Richardson Denies Motion to Suppress
by Setarah Jahid
On Tuesday afternoon in a preliminary hearing, only one witness was called to testify against the defendant, Alfred James. Deputy DA Deanna Hays brought Detective Gary Hallenbeck from the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, and he has served eight years on the Yolo Narcotic Enforcement Team (YONET). Det. Hallenbeck has posed undercover as a big-time methamphetamine dealer, and when asked how many times he has been called to testify as an expert on controlled substances, he stated, “No less than 35 times.”
The prosecution began the direct examination by turning Mr. Hallenbeck’s attention to the date of April 20, 2016, at 30 minutes before midnight. On that night, Det. Hallenbeck was on duty with his partner, and pulled Mr. James over for a “traffic violation.” According to Hallenbeck, the defendant was going to turn right at an exit, but at the last minute decided to switch to the left lane, and, therefore, was driving in an “unsafe” fashion and violating “Vehicle Code.”
When pulled over for his driving, James seemed “nervous,” and could not find his driver’s license. James also had constricted pupils and was disoriented. Hallenbeck and his partner asked James to step out of his vehicle, and began searching the car for his license. Instead, they found three bags of what seemed to be methamphetamine. The three bags tested positive as meth.
In cross-examination, Deputy Public Defender Peter Borruso played the video from Mr. Hallenbeck’s police car, from the night of the incident. Afterward, he began his line of questioning, all of which made clear that there is no substantial evidence of what Hallenbeck claimed to be a Vehicle Code violation. Additionally, James had a registration sticker on his windshield – which does not fall into the description of a meth-dealer’s vehicle. Thus, Mr. Borruso concluded that further questioning was prolonged and unnecessary, and so the evidence should be quashed.
“The Court saw the video, there’s no vehicle code violation,” claimed Mr. Borruso.
Borruso also added that the prosecution cited In re Raymond C. from 2008 as precedent for this case, but the two cases are not similar. In the case of Raymond, the registration sticker was not visible in the rear, and the officer could not see that there was a temporary permit on the windshield. The courts held that it was reasonable to stop the vehicle, despite no observed driving violations, in an effort to check for registration. Although Hallenbeck did note that later on he discovered James’ actual license plate was covered by a paper license plate, Mr. Borruso countered that it is common to do that with a new car – and does not necessarily implicate the defendant.
Judge Richardson concluded he agrees that the Vehicle Code violations are thin, but the paper license plate, coupled with the officer’s professional opinion, provided a reasonable basis for Hallenbeck’s stop.
The motion to suppress evidence was denied, and an arraignment date is set for February 14, 2017.
Judge Beronio Denies Motion to Suppress
by Tiffany Yeh
Defendant Maria Bermudez, represented by Deputy Public Defender James Bradford, was present for a motion to suppress, with Judge Janene Beronio presiding and Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Palumbo representing the People.
A police officer testified that he saw the defendant with a cell phone and holding a steering wheel with both hands “near the top of the wheel” or by the “side” of the wheel, driving approximately at the speed limit. There was a car between the police officer’s vehicle and the defendant’s Chrysler. The other vehicle pulled to the side to allow the police officer to reach the defendant’s vehicle better.
Ms. Bermudez pulled over, as the police officer had his vehicle’s lights on. He alleges that he was able to see her hands and the cell phone – they were somewhere above the window line and the defendant was looking down at the phone in her hands. He stated that the defendant had an expired vehicle registration.
Mr. Bradford argued that it was only after the police officer initiated the detention that he noticed that Ms. Bermudez’s registration was expired. Originally, the officer had only noticed her hold the phone against the steering wheel. The officer could not have known about the expired registration at the point of detaining Ms. Bermudez.
DA Palumbo cited part of the Vehicle Code, about driving while using a wireless telephone. Her argument was that the defendant, by just looking down at her cell phone, with both hands on the wheel, was diverting her attention and making conditions dangerous for drivers around her.
Judge Beronio stated there was reasonable suspicion; she denied the defense’s motion to suppress. The prosecution and defense came to a plea agreement. Ms. Bermudez plead to count one and admitted one prior.
