People v. Lopez
4 Cal. App. 5th 815
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On July 4, 2014, Officer Jeff Moe responded to reports of an erratically driven car; later he located the reported vehicle and watched defendant Maria Elena Lopez park and exit.
- Officer Moe approached Lopez as she got out of the car and asked if she had a driver’s license; she said she did not and thought identification might be in the car.
- Officer Moe handcuffed Lopez; a second officer retrieved a purse from the front passenger seat and handed it to Moe, who opened it looking for identification.
- A small amount of methamphetamine was discovered in a side pocket of the purse.
- Lopez moved to suppress the evidence; the trial court granted suppression and dismissed the case, reasoning Arizona v. Gant required suppression because the search was not incident to an arrest for an offense likely to leave evidence in the vehicle.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the limited search for identification was lawful under California’s Arturo D. doctrine and not precluded by Gant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the officer’s initial approach a consensual encounter or an unlawful detention? | Officer: approach was consensual; asking for ID is permitted. | Lopez: officer’s conduct and location made it a detention lacking reasonable suspicion. | Consensual encounter; not a detention until Lopez admitted she had no license. |
| Was the search of the purse for identification lawful under Arturo D.? | People: Arturo D. permits a limited search of areas where ID reasonably may be found after driver fails to produce ID. | Lopez: Arturo D. is overridden by Gant; search was unlawful. | Search for identification in purse was a limited Webster/Arturo D. type search and lawful. |
| Does Arizona v. Gant bar the limited search here? | People: Gant limits Belton-type searches but does not displace Arturo D. searches for ID. | Lopez: Gant undermines Arturo D.; any search while arrestee is secured must meet Gant. | Gant does not control this Webster/Arturo D. limited search for identification. |
| Did handcuffing convert the interaction into an arrest invoking Gant? | People: handcuffing did not automatically convert the search into a Belton/Gant search incident to arrest. | Lopez: being handcuffed equals arrest, so Gant constraints apply. | Being handcuffed did not transform the limited ID search into a full search incident to arrest under Gant. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Arturo D., 27 Cal.4th 60 (Cal. 2002) (recognizes limited warrantless searches of vehicle areas where identification/registration reasonably may be found)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits vehicle searches incident to arrest; allows such searches only if arrestee could access vehicle or vehicle likely contains evidence of the offense of arrest)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (upholds narrow VIN search balancing privacy and governmental interests)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (permitted search of passenger compartment and containers incident to lawful arrest)
- Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998) (prohibits full-scale vehicle search after issuance of a citation absent arrest)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits search-incident-to-arrest to arrestee and area within immediate control)
- People v. Webster, 54 Cal.3d 411 (1991) (upheld limited searches of traditional repositories for registration after traffic stops)
- Ingle v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.3d 188 (1982) (approved officer retrieval of a wallet/purse for ID when driver told officer where it was)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (noting handcuffs can be a ‘‘trapping of a technical formal arrest")