People v. Smith, 46 Cal.App.5th 375

Background

Two consolidated prosecutions: one from a 2014 casita search (counts 1–5) and one from a 2016 motorcycle collision search (counts 6–10); jury convicted Smith on all counts and court found two § 667.5(b) prison-prior enhancements true.
Police responded to a tip about an unoccupied running car in the driveway, walked the exterior, found an unlocked interior door under the same roofline (a casita), opened it without knocking, announced “police,” and saw Smith and drugs in plain view.
Smith was later in a motorcycle collision; officers impounded the bike and conducted a routine inventory search, unlocking a seat compartment with the ignition key and finding methamphetamine.
On appeal (after transfer from the California Supreme Court to consider People v. Ovieda and after enactment of SB 136), the court held the casita entry was unlawful and suppressed that evidence, upheld the motorcycle inventory search, and accepted the Attorney General’s concession that SB 136 requires striking Smith’s two § 667.5(b) one‑year priors.
Result: convictions for counts 1–5 reversed (casita evidence suppressed); other convictions affirmed; § 667.5(b) enhancements stricken; case remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the warrantless entry into the casita justified by emergency aid/exigent circumstances?	Entry was reasonable to investigate potential medical emergency/crime after seeing an unoccupied running car and getting no response at the front door.	No articulable facts supported an objectively reasonable belief of an emergency or burglary; entry violated the Fourth Amendment.	Entry was not justified by emergency aid or exigent circumstances; search suppressed.
Does the community‑caretaking / Ray plurality justify the entry or support good‑faith reliance?	Officer relied on Ray; good‑faith reliance on that precedent makes suppression unnecessary.	Ray was only a plurality and non‑binding; officer lacked objectively reasonable legal authority to enter.	Good‑faith exception does not apply because reliance on nonbinding Ray is not objectively reasonable; suppression required.
Was the warrantless inventory search of the impounded motorcycle lawful?	Inventory search followed standardized procedure, was for protection/recording of property, and opening the seat compartment with key was permissible.	Opening the locked compartment was pretextual and not required—police sought contraband.	Inventory search lawful; opening seat compartment analogous to trunk search and not pretextual.
Did Smith forfeit challenge to $300 assessment and $10,000 restitution fine for lack of ability‑to‑pay determination?	Forfeited because Smith failed to object at sentencing; trial court had authority to consider ability to pay and he did not seek a hearing.	Dueñas shows courts must determine ability to pay before imposing certain fines; failure to object was excusable.	Challenge forfeited: Smith did not object in trial court so appellate claim fails.
Do Senate Bill No. 136 amendments to § 667.5(b) require striking prior‑prison enhancements?	SB 136 applies retroactively to nonfinal cases; enhancements no longer authorized except for sexually violent offense priors.	Agrees.	Enhancements stricken; remand for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1979) (warrantless home entry presumptively unconstitutional)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (home searches implicate heightened Fourth Amendment protection)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (emergency‑aid exception permits warrantless entry when objectively reasonable belief of imminent injury exists)
People v. Ovieda, 7 Cal.5th 1034 (2019) (rejecting community‑caretaking exception to residential warrant requirement absent exigency)
People v. Ray, 21 Cal.4th 464 (1999) (plurality endorsing community‑caretaking rationale for warrantless entry—not binding after Ovieda)
People v. Smith, 7 Cal.3d 282 (1972) (warrantless entry invalid where officer speculated silence meant incapacitation)
People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3d 91 (1986) (exigent circumstances may justify entry when facts support reasonable belief of burglary in progress)
Horack v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 720 (1970) (warrantless entry unreasonable where no evidence of imminent danger or burglary)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (vehicle inventory searches are a recognized Fourth Amendment exception)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (opening containers in inventory searches requires standardized procedures)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary rule not always required for knock‑and‑announce violations)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule tied to deterrence and police culpability)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (suppression unwarranted when officers reasonably relied on then‑controlling precedent)