People v. Carmona
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Carmona and Holguin were charged with transportation of a controlled substance and possession for sale, with prior enhancements for Carmona.
- Officer Wilson stopped Carmona for an alleged traffic signal violation under Vehicle Code section 22107 during a right turn onto Olive from Walnut.
- Wilson noted Carmona on parole and Holguin appeared anxious; he asked about narcotics and searched the vehicle, discovering methamphetamine and related items.
- Defendants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing there was no reasonable suspicion or valid Vehicle Code violation to justify the stop.
- The trial court determined sections 22107 and 22108 should be read together and concluded Carmona violated 22108 (100-foot signal) to justify the stop.
- After the suppression ruling, Carmona and Holguin pled guilty to the charges, and the court imposed various dispositions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Carmona/Holguin: 22107 not violated; no other vehicle affected. | Carmona/Holguin: no lawful basis for stop; signals not required without affecting another vehicle. | No reasonable suspicion; stop invalid. |
| Whether 22107 and 22108 must be read together to require a 100-foot continuous signal when another vehicle may be affected | Carmona/Holguin: read together; 100-foot signal applies only if another vehicle may be affected. | People: 22108 standalone; mandates 100-foot signal regardless of others. | Statutes read together; no violation where no other vehicle could be affected. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Logsdon, 164 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (signals required within 100 feet only if another vehicle may be affected)
- In re Justin K., 98 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (reasonable suspicion requires objectively articulable facts)
- U.S. v. Mariscal, 285 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2002) (turn signal nullified where no potential effect on traffic)
- People v. Cole, 38 Cal.4th 964 (Cal. 2006) (statutory interpretation to harmonize related vehicle-code provisions)