P. .v Smartt CA3, C075619

Background

On June 18, 2013, Deputy Peyton and Sergeant Guerrero in an unmarked car saw Ahmad Smartt and others loitering; Peyton recognized Smartt from prior contacts (one earlier stop in which a handgun was found in front of Smartt).
When the officers approached, Smartt stood, grabbed a backpack and began to walk away; he greeted Peyton, who asked if Smartt had "any weapons or anything on him." Smartt replied, "go ahead and check."
Peyton performed a patsearch of Smartt (no contraband found). Smartt then placed his backpack on the ground and told Peyton it contained a BB gun. Peyton picked up the pack, observed it was heavy, asked whether it contained a sawed-off shotgun; Smartt looked away and lowered his head. Peyton handcuffed Smartt, opened the backpack, and found a sawed-off shotgun.
Smartt moved to suppress the shotgun as the product of an unlawful search; the trial court denied the motion. Smartt pleaded no contest to possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33210) and admitted a gang enhancement; he was sentenced to county jail and probation.
Smartt appealed, challenging denial of the suppression motion and seeking independent review of the Pitchess in camera proceedings (requesting deputy personnel records for allegations of illegal searches/seizures).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the search of the backpack was lawful	The officer reasonably interpreted Smartt’s open consent ("go ahead and check") to include containers (the backpack) where weapons could be hidden.	Consent was limited to a patsearch of Smartt’s person; picking up/opening the backpack exceeded the scope of consent and was therefore illegal.	The Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports an implied finding of consent that reasonably included the backpack, so suppression was properly denied.
Whether Smartt’s placement of the backpack on the ground limited consent	The People: placement was consistent with facilitating a search and did not communicate exclusion; silence and lack of objection supported inclusion.	Smartt: placing the pack on the ground indicated he excluded it from the patsearch scope.	The Court held placement did not objectively limit consent; officer could reasonably infer the pack remained within scope.
Applicability of Pellecer (distinguishing container on/near person)	The People: "have . . . on him" reasonably includes carried containers; Pellecer is inapposite.	Smartt relied on Pellecer to argue a container is not "upon" the person, so consent to search the person shouldn't reach the bag.	The Court disagreed with Smartt and found Pellecer inapplicable — ordinary meaning of "have on you" includes carried containers.
Adequacy of Pitchess in camera review	The People: trial court properly conducted sealed review and found no discoverable records.	Smartt requested independent appellate review to ensure full disclosure.	The Court reviewed the sealed transcript and concluded the trial court did not abuse discretion; no records required disclosure.

Key Cases Cited

Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (trial court in camera review procedure for police personnel records)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (consent to search is measured by objective reasonableness; consent to search for items extends to containers reasonably expected to hold them)
People v. Lomax, 49 Cal.4th 530 (standard of review for suppression rulings: defer to factual findings, independent legal review)
People v. Pellecer, 215 Cal.App.4th 508 (distinguishing items "upon his or her person" from items in carried containers — distinguished here)
State v. Quale, 225 Or.App. 461 (persuasive authority that general consent to search for weapons may include a backpack)