People v. Laszlo CA5, F070102

Deputy Klawitter stopped Laszlo in a Vagabond Inn parking lot after observing the rear license plate light was out and contacted him about the traffic violation.
Laszlo initially refused the deputy’s request to search his person. After 15–30 seconds of casual conversation, Laszlo turned, placed his hands on his head, and consented.
During the encounter Laszlo acknowledged his driver’s license was expired; the deputy told him he could arrest and search him incident to that arrest.
The deputy, alone and without displaying a weapon or handcuffs, found a small bag of methamphetamine in Laszlo’s pocket.
Laszlo moved to suppress the evidence as coerced consent; the trial court denied the motion. Laszlo pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Laszlo’s consent was coerced by the deputy’s statement he could arrest and search him	Consent was voluntary; deputy lawfully warned he could arrest for expired license, then engaged in casual conversation before consent	Consent was involuntary because deputy threatened arrest and impoundment, browbeating defendant into submission	Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; deputy’s statement about arrest was not inherently coercive
Whether deputy could legally arrest for expired license (raised first on appeal)	Deputy had probable cause to arrest for license and lamp violations; arrest would permit search incident to arrest	Defendant contends arrest authority was lacking because driving occurred in private lot (argument not raised below)	Claim forfeited on appeal for failure to raise at suppression hearing; court assumes deputy could lawfully arrest
Whether deputy’s subjective intent to arrest matters	Objective legality controls; officer may say he could arrest without that making consent coerced	Argues deputy’s lack of actual intent undermines justification for search incident to arrest	Subjective intent irrelevant; Fourth Amendment analysis is objective
Whether suppression denial should be reversed	Evidence supports trial court’s factual finding of voluntary consent; denial should stand	Challenge to voluntariness merits reversal	Denial affirmed; substantial evidence supports voluntariness

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (consent must be voluntary under totality of circumstances)
Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (voluntariness requirement for consent searches)
Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (officer may make custodial arrest for minor offenses)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (search incident to lawful custodial arrest)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective intent of officers is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
People v. Williams, 20 Cal.4th 119 (defendant must raise specific suppression grounds below or forfeit on appeal)
People v. Boyer, 38 Cal.4th 412 (prosecution must prove consent was voluntary)