People v. Alexander CA4/3, G061335

Background:

Two masked men robbed a payday-advance/check‑cashing business in Anaheim by dropping through a ceiling, beating and tasing the manager, removing the safe, and fleeing in a black minivan observed by a witness.
The minivan was linked by a near‑matching Oregon plate to a rental contract in Alexander’s wife’s name; Alexander had been present when it was rented and the rental was charged to his card.
Deputies obtained a warrant to search Alexander’s and co‑defendant McDaughtery’s homes and vehicles “parked at or in the vicinity” of the residences; at execution Alexander fled in a different vehicle, was arrested after a pursuit, and officers later searched a Chevrolet Tahoe registered to Alexander (parked ~6.6 miles from the closer residence).
The Tahoe contained bags with tools, a cordless saw and drill, pry bar, black clothing, a security uniform and other items consistent with the robbery MO; Alexander moved to suppress evidence from the Tahoe, arguing the warrant did not cover it and there was no probable cause.
The trial court denied suppression (search upheld under the automobile exception) and conducted an in‑camera Pitchess review of two officers’ personnel files, finding no discoverable records; on appeal the court upheld the automobile‑exception ruling but conditionally reversed because the Pitchess hearing procedures were inadequate.
Case outcome: convictions for false imprisonment and second‑degree robbery affirmed except for conditional reversal and remand to conduct a proper Pitchess hearing; sentence of 12 years was imposed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless search of the Tahoe was lawful under the automobile exception	Probable cause existed from phone records, surveillance, texts and MO linking Alexander/McDaughtery to multiple ceiling‑entry robberies and a high likelihood tools/clothing would be in their vehicle	Warrant did not extend to the Tahoe (too far "in the vicinity") and there was no probable cause to search that vehicle	Denied suppression: the automobile exception applied; totality of circumstances supported probable cause to search the Tahoe
Whether the Pitchess in‑camera review complied with required procedures and preserved appellate review	Custodians and court adequately reviewed personnel/internal affairs files and found no discoverable material	Custodians did not establish they produced complete files or explain withheld materials; court failed to create a sufficient record of documents examined	Conditionally reversed and remanded for a new Pitchess hearing; trial court must personally review or document contents and confirm any withholdings

Key Cases Cited

People v. Silveria and Travis, 10 Cal.5th 195 (2020) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
People v. Dumas, 9 Cal.3d 871 (1973) (automobile‑exception scope includes parked vehicles)
People v. Superior Court (Nasmeh), 151 Cal.App.4th 85 (2007) (automobile exception permits warrantless searches of vehicles when probable cause exists)
People v. Carrington, 47 Cal.4th 145 (2009) (probable cause may exist where criminal activity is ongoing and evidence may remain)
U.S. v. Jacobs, 715 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir. 1983) (clothing used in past robberies may reasonably be expected to remain at a suspect’s premises)
People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (2001) (Pitchess procedures: court must conduct in‑camera review and custodians must bring all potentially relevant records)
People v. Guevara, 148 Cal.App.4th 62 (2007) (custodian must describe withheld documents and the contents of the complete personnel file to permit appellate review)