People v. Barajas, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497

Defendant Eliseo Barajas was charged by misdemeanor complaint with carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code § 21310) and, while in custody, moved to dismiss under Penal Code § 991 at arraignment.
Officer Honrath encountered Barajas about 2:25 a.m.; after shining a light and asking questions, he asked if Barajas was on probation; Barajas admitted he carried a blade and later produced a four-inch knife; police arrested and booked the knife.
The trial court found the initial encounter was not consensual and that the detention lacked reasonable suspicion, then dismissed the complaint under § 991.
The People appealed, arguing a § 991 hearing is limited to the question of probable cause that an offense was committed and defendant is guilty, and does not permit litigation of Fourth Amendment detention issues.
The appellate court reviewed statutory text, related statutes (notably § 1538.5), and controlling cases (Gerstein and Walters) and concluded § 991 does not authorize adjudication of suppression or reasonableness-of-detention claims at a § 991 proceeding.
The court reversed the dismissal and overruled People v. Ward, holding suppression and other Fourth Amendment challenges must be litigated through the exclusive pretrial remedies (e.g., § 1538.5).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 991 hearing may include litigation of the constitutionality of pre-arrest/pre-detention conduct (reasonable suspicion)	People: § 991 is limited to whether there is probable cause that a public offense was committed and defendant is guilty; it does not authorize suppression litigation.	Barajas: On request, § 991 has two phases—first exclude unconstitutionally obtained evidence, then assess probable cause based only on constitutionally obtained evidence.	Court held § 991 does not permit litigating Fourth Amendment suppression/reasonable-suspicion issues; such issues must be raised under the exclusive remedies (e.g., § 1538.5).
Whether Ward (1986) correctly allowed consideration of detention lawfulness at § 991 hearings	People: Ward was wrongly decided and conflicts with Gerstein/Walters and § 1538.5 exclusivity.	Barajas pointed to Ward and legislative inaction (and citations in later statutory history) as supporting Ward.	Court overruled Ward and rejected inference of legislative approval from later enactments; Ward is not good law.

Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (establishes prompt post-arrest probable-cause determination requirement and permits informal, documentary hearings)
In re Walters, 15 Cal.3d 738 (applies Gerstein to in-custody misdemeanants and supports judicial probable-cause determination at arraignment)
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (exclusionary rule for evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment)
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (limits on use of unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal proceedings)
People v. Williams, 213 Cal.App.3d 1186 (preliminary hearing scope: suppression issues must be litigated under § 1538.5)
People v. McGowan, 242 Cal.App.4th 377 (discusses § 991’s purpose as a misdemeanant preliminary-hearing analogue)
People v. Ward, 188 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11 (overruled) (previous appellate-division decision permitting detention-lawfulness consideration at § 991 hearings)