People v. Turner, A147603M

Early morning, Turner found sleeping/leaning on a duffel bag in a 24-hour restaurant; manager repeatedly asked him to leave and signed a citizen request for prosecution. Officer Niemi arrested Turner for refusing to leave.
Officer Niemi transported Turner and his duffel bag to the station; due to miscommunication, the bag was not inventoried until ~18 hours after arrest.
Inventory search disclosed a loaded .38 revolver, a 50-round box (44 rounds) of .38 ammunition, and ~3 grams of methamphetamine.
Turner moved to suppress the contraband, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause; the magistrate denied the motion and the trial court later upheld that denial under Penal Code §602.1(a).
At trial Turner denied ownership of the gun, bullets, and drugs and suggested police planted the items; the prosecution impeached him with evidence he possessed identical ammunition at an unrelated arrest a month earlier.
Jury convicted Turner of possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of ammunition by a felon, and possession of methamphetamine; court suspended sentence and granted three years’ probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arrest had probable cause such that a later inventory search of Turner’s bag was lawful	Officer had probable cause to arrest Turner for intentionally interfering with a business under Penal Code §602.1(a) based on repeated refusals to leave, manager’s request, and prior calls about Turner	Turner argued no facts supported intent to obstruct or intimidate customers or employees and thus no probable cause for §602.1(a) arrest	Held: Probable cause existed for §602.1(a) arrest; inventory search after lawful arrest was permissible and suppression denial was proper
Whether evidence of Turner’s prior possession of identical ammunition (from an earlier arrest) was admissible to impeach his trial testimony	Evidence admissible to contradict/sap credibility of Turner’s claim that police planted ammunition and to impeach specific testimony	Turner argued prior arrest evidence was unduly prejudicial, not directly contradictory, and arrests (not convictions) are generally inadmissible for impeachment	Held: Admission was within trial court’s discretion — prior possession tended to impeach his claim police planted evidence and was not unduly prejudicial under Evid. Code §352

People v. Macabeo, 1 Cal.5th 1206 (state high court) (Fourth Amendment warrant/search principles)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (U.S. Supreme Court) (inventory search exception to warrant requirement)
People v. Kraft, 23 Cal.4th 978 (probable-cause-to-arrest standard)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court) (totality-of-circumstances probable cause analysis)
People v. Millwee, 18 Cal.4th 96 (prior similar testimony admissible to impeach credibility)
Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.) (refusal-to-leave alone insufficient in different factual context)
People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (evidence exclusion under Cal. Evid. Code §352)
People v. Clark, 52 Cal.4th 856 (admission of prior misconduct for impeachment; trial court discretion)
People v. Casares, 62 Cal.4th 808 (standard of review for magistrate factual findings)