36 Cal.App.5th 12
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In April 2017 an officer observed a parked car at 1:30 a.m. with only amber fog lights illuminated, saw two occupants, made a U-turn, parked about 10 feet behind, and trained spotlights on the car.
- The officer smelled marijuana, approached, saw the passenger attempt to conceal bags, asked questions, and learned Kidd was on probation; Kidd then spontaneously told the officer there was a firearm in the center console.
- Officer verified Kidd’s probation search condition, searched the car, and recovered ~26 ounces of marijuana, a scale, a pistol (serial scratched), a loaded magazine, and Alprazolam pills; Kidd was charged with multiple felonies.
- Kidd moved to suppress under Penal Code §1538.5 at the preliminary hearing (denied by the magistrate) and renewed the §1538.5 motion after arraignment (denied). He then moved under §995 to set aside the information on suppression grounds; a different judge granted the §995 motion and dismissed the charges.
- The People appealed, arguing (1) §995 relitigation was impermissible after earlier §1538.5 rulings and (2) suppression was erroneous on the merits. The Court of Appeal affirmed the §995 grant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kidd could re-raise suppression in a §995 motion after losing §1538.5 motions | §995 was an improper attempt to relitigate and circumvent finality of prior §1538.5 rulings | §1538.5 and §995 are distinct statutory vehicles; Legislature preserved §995 and multiple pretrial chances to challenge searches | Court: No procedural bar — §995 is a separate remedy and interlocutory §1538.5 rulings are not final for res judicata purposes; relitigation via §995 permitted |
| Whether the detention and subsequent search were lawful (merits of suppression) | Officer had reasonable suspicion (fog lights, passenger concealing bags, approach was consensual) and evidence should not be excluded | Officer detained Kidd by parking behind and spotlighting the car without articulable suspicion; detention was unlawful and evidence must be suppressed to deter deliberate seizures without suspicion | Court: Detention occurred when officer pulled behind and spotlighted car and approached; no reasonable suspicion supported detention; exclusionary rule applied and suppression was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 (Legislature left §995 intact when adopting §1538.5)
- People v. Superior Court (Scofield), 249 Cal.App.2d 727 (1967) (res judicata barred relitigation where prior collateral writ produced final judgment)
- People v. Magee, 194 Cal.App.4th 178 (standard of review in §995 proceedings mirrors appellate review of magistrate)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (consensual encounter v. detention analysis; reasonable person standard)
- People v. Bailey, 176 Cal.App.3d 402 (officer pulling in behind and lights on can signal detention)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule’s deterrence rationale; excludes deliberate or reckless misconduct)