People v. Myles
6 Cal. App. 5th 1158
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 15, 2014 officers observed Myles and another man near Myles’s Toyota Prius in an unfenced apartment parking lot; the other man was drinking from a clear vodka bottle.
- Officers smelled burnt marijuana coming from the Prius, approached, and asked if there was anything in the car; Myles said a loaded Smith & Wesson 9mm was in the trunk.
- Officers searched the Prius and found 2.94 grams of cocaine in the driver’s door compartment and a loaded 9mm under the driver’s seat plus extra magazines.
- Myles was Mirandized, admitted ownership of the gun but denied knowledge of the cocaine; he pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance while armed (Health & Saf. Code § 11370.1(a)) and having a concealed firearm in a vehicle (Pen. Code § 25400(a)(1)).
- Myles moved to suppress the evidence arguing the parking lot was private and officers lacked reasonable belief of a public offense; trial court denied the motion. Myles appealed that denial and challenged imposed fees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of suppression, modified assessment amounts for court facilities/security fees to reflect two felony convictions, and reversed the $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee as unauthorized for the convicted offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers reasonably believed a public offense (drinking in public) occurred so as to justify investigation and seizure | Officers: parking lot was a public place; observed public drinking and smelled marijuana giving probable cause to investigate | Myles: parking lot was private property (apartment complex lot), so officers lacked reasonable belief of public offense | Court: parking lot was a public place (readily accessible, unfenced, visible); suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether court facility and court security assessments should be doubled for two felonies | People: assessments apply per felony; thus $60 (Gov. Code § 70373) and $80 (Pen. Code § 1465.8) total | Myles: assessments should reflect single-instance or otherwise challenged | Court: order modified to impose $60 and $80 (assessments per felony) |
| Whether a Health & Safety Code § 11372.5(a) criminal laboratory analysis fee ($50) could be imposed | People: trial court imposed $50 lab fee | Myles: fee unauthorized because his convicted drug offense (HS § 11370.1(a)) is not among enumerated offenses in § 11372.5(a) | Court: reversed the $50 lab fee as jurisdictionally unauthorized |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342 (standard of review for suppression: defer to factual findings; independent judgment on constitutionality)
- People v. Glaser, 11 Cal.4th 354 (discusses review standard for search and seizure rulings)
- People v. Krohn, 149 Cal.App.4th 1294 (public place analysis; gated vs unfenced access distinction)
- People v. Vega, 130 Cal.App.4th 183 (limits on Health & Saf. Code § 11372.5 fee to enumerated offenses)
- People v. Talibdeen, 27 Cal.4th 1151 (failure to impose or improperly impose certain drug-related fees is a jurisdictional error)