People v. Turner, A147603

Early morning at a Nation’s restaurant: Officer Niemi found Turner slouched in a booth with a jacket over his head and a duffel bag; Turner had been asked to leave multiple times and had been the subject of previous calls to the restaurant.
Officer Niemi repeatedly told Turner to leave; after the manager signed a citizen’s arrest/request for prosecution form, Niemi handcuffed Turner, took his duffel bag outside, and transported Turner and the bag to the station.
Due to a miscommunication, the bag was not inventory-searched until ~18 hours after booking; the later inventory revealed a loaded .38 revolver, a 50-round box (44 rounds) of Fiocchi .38 ammunition, and ~3 grams of methamphetamine.
Turner was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of ammunition by a felon, and misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine; he moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful arrest.
At trial Turner denied ownership of the gun, ammo, and drugs and suggested the police planted the items; the prosecution impeached him with evidence that a month earlier he was found in possession of the same type of Fiocchi .38 ammunition.
Jury convicted on all counts; court placed Turner on three years’ probation. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arrest had probable cause so that a post-arrest inventory search was lawful	Probable cause existed under Penal Code §602.1(a) because Turner refused to leave after multiple requests, disrupted staff duties, and had a history of similar incidents	Turner argued his refusal alone did not establish intent to interfere with business and thus arrest lacked probable cause	Held: Probable cause existed for §602.1(a) arrest; inventory search exception applied and evidence was admissible
Whether evidence of prior possession of identical ammunition was admissible to impeach Turner’s testimony	Prior possession tended to impeach Turner’s claim that police planted the ammunition and was therefore admissible to challenge credibility	Turner argued prior arrest evidence was unduly prejudicial, not directly contradictory, and prior arrests (not convictions) are generally inadmissible for impeachment	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; prior possession was admissible impeachment evidence and not unduly prejudicial under Evid. Code §352

Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (inventory searches of personal effects after lawful arrest are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause is a practical, totality-of-the-circumstances standard)
People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (2000) (definition and review of probable cause for arrests)
People v. Millwee, 18 Cal.4th 96 (1998) (prior similar misconduct admissible to impeach credibility where it undermines a defendant’s account)
Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2001) (refusal to leave alone may be insufficient for probable cause under §602.1(a) in some contexts)
People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (2009) (Evid. Code §352 excludes only evidence whose prejudicial effect substantially outweighs probative value)
People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (2011) (trial court’s broad discretion in admitting impeachment evidence)