In re P.A. CA1/5
A135422
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 14, 2013Background
- February 17, 2012, victim robbed by two armed suspects; iPhone taken; GPS tracked iPhone to Treat and Cowell area in a parked SUV with five occupants including P.A.
- Police halted the SUV, drew weapons, and conducted an investigative detention with occupants handcuffed; P.A. was the vehicle driver.
- Officer McGraw asked P.A. for permission to search the SUV; P.A. consented and stated that everything in the car belonged to him.
- Officers recovered a pistol (BB gun) under the driver’s seat area, along with An’s iPhone and wallet; An identified these items as his property.
- Hours later, Vermillion questioned P.A. at the police station and P.A. admitted the robbery and his role in it during a post-Miranda interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness standard for consent to search vehicle | Consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances | Court relied on reasonableness rather than totality of circumstances | Voluntariness shown under totality of circumstances |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting voluntariness finding | Coercive factors render consent involuntary | Reasons for consent compatible with voluntariness; no coercion as a matter of law | Substantial evidence supports voluntary consent |
| Detention vs. arrest and tainting of consent | Handcuffing and gun display converted detention to unlawful arrest tainting consent | Detention justified; handcuffs did not convert to arrest; consent valid | Detention remained investigative; no taint to consent |
Key Cases Cited
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness determined under totality of circumstances; burden on government)
- People v. James, 19 Cal.3d 99 (1977) (consent must be voluntary; factors weighed by court)
- People v. Monterroso, 34 Cal.4th 743 (2004) (implied finding of voluntariness reviewed for substantial evidence)
- People v. McKelvy, 23 Cal.App.3d 1027 (1972) (consent can be voluntary despite custodial conditions)
- People v. Ratliff, 41 Cal.3d 675 (1986) (consent to search while handcuffed may be voluntary)
- Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) (informant of warrant affects voluntariness of consent)
- People v. Challoner, 136 Cal.App.3d 779 (1982) (gun drawn at time of consent affects voluntariness; case distinguished)
- People v. Soun, 34 Cal.App.4th 1499 (1995) (discussion on transport consent not decisive here)