People v. Kidd, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 234

Background

In early morning, an officer in a marked patrol car saw a parked vehicle with only its amber fog lights on and two occupants; he made a U-turn, parked behind it, shined spotlights, and exited his vehicle to approach.
On approach the officer smelled marijuana, saw the passenger attempting to hide bags, and asked occupants to exit; Kidd (driver) said he was on probation and then volunteered that a firearm was in the console.
Officer then confirmed Kidd's probation search condition and searched the car, seizing ~26 ounces of marijuana, a digital scale, a pistol with the serial scratched off, a loaded magazine, and pills; Kidd was arrested and charged with felonies.
Kidd moved to suppress under Penal Code §1538.5 at the preliminary hearing (denied by the magistrate) and again after arraignment under §1538.5(i) (denied by the trial court). He later moved to set aside the information under §995 arguing the seizure was unlawful; a different judge granted §995 and suppressed the evidence, dismissing charges.
The People appealed, arguing (1) §995 was an improper vehicle to relitigate suppression after §1538.5(i) and (2) on the merits the detention/search were lawful. The appellate court affirmed the §995 grant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kidd was procedurally barred from raising suppression in a §995 motion after earlier §1538.5 motions	§995 motion improperly re-litigated issues already decided in prior §1538.5 proceedings; relief should be denied	§995 is an independent, permissible statutory vehicle to challenge admissibility; Legislature preserved §995 alongside §1538.5	Not barred: §995 is a separate remedy; no res judicata or rule precluding a §995 review of magistrate's preliminary ruling
Whether officer’s initial encounter and spotlighting constituted a consensual encounter or a seizure/detention	Encounter was consensual until officer observed passenger hiding contraband or learned Kidd was on probation	Spotlight, parking behind the car, and exiting the patrol vehicle transformed the encounter into a detention requiring reasonable suspicion	Detention occurred when officer pulled in behind, spotlighted, and exited; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave
Whether the detention was supported by reasonable suspicion (thus lawful)	Fog lights on without headlamps gave reasonable suspicion of Vehicle Code violation (or imminent unlawful driving) justifying detention	Fog lights alone are compatible with lawful conduct; such facts amount only to speculation, not articulable suspicion	No reasonable suspicion: parking with fog lights on did not objectively justify detention; seizure was unlawful
Whether suppression was required despite absence of bad faith (attenuation / exclusionary rule)	Evidence need not be suppressed because officer acted without bad faith; attenuation may apply (probation/parole search)	Illegal detention was deliberate (not negligent); exclusionary rule necessary to deter such conduct; attenuation not argued by People	Evidence suppressed: detention was deliberate and exclusionary rule applied; attenuation not persuasive or raised by People

Key Cases Cited

People v. Magee, 194 Cal.App.4th 178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (describes scope of §995 review and deference to magistrate findings)
People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 (Cal. 1983) (Legislature left §995 intact when enacting §1538.5; multiple pretrial remedies preserved)
People v. Scofield, 249 Cal.App.2d 727 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) (res judicata barred relitigation where prior collateral writ produced final judgment)
In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997) (defines consensual encounter vs. seizure; reasonable person test)
People v. Bailey, 176 Cal.App.3d 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (pulling in behind and using lights can signal detention to motorists)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (exclusionary rule aims to deter deliberate or reckless police misconduct)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1975) (exclusionary rule and attenuation principles)