People v. Valencia
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Valencia consented to a brief search of his pickup truck during a traffic stop for a broken tail light.
- A second officer learned Valencia might have warrants; Valencia and the vehicle were transported to a police station.
- At the station, a third officer conducted a second search of the truck and found cocaine hidden in a bindle.
- Valencia moved to suppress the second-search evidence, arguing it exceeded the scope of his consent.
- The trial court denied the motion; Valencia pled guilty to possession of cocaine for sale, with probation conditions.
- On appeal, Valencia contends the second search exceeded his consent; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a single consent authorize a second search? | Valencia; consent ended after the initial search. | Valencia; second search exceeded the scope of consent. | Not categorically barred; may be allowed under totality of circumstances. |
| What factors determine the reasonableness of a second search under a single consent? | Valencia; limits and timing undermine second search. | Valencia; various factors can justify second search if reasonable. | Court lists multiple factors; no single factor controlling. |
| Did Hofmeyer’s second search fall within Valencia’s consent? | Valencia; second search exceeded consent since no explicit authority for a second search. | Valencia; second search was reasonably within scope given ongoing consent and control. | Yes; second search was objectively reasonable within the scope of consent. |
| Does the vehicle context affect the scope analysis differently than a residence? | Valencia; vehicle searches are more limited than residence searches. | Valencia; vehicle searches have different privacy expectations, allowing broader review. | Vehicle searches treated with more leniency; second search still within consent. |
| Did timing and control over the vehicle support the second search? | Valencia; no control or impound awareness by Valencia to justify subsequent search. | Valencia; continuous control and proximity in time support reasonableness. | Yes; proximity in time and continued control support the second search. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cantor, 149 Cal.App.4th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (consent scope must be measured by objective reasonableness)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent based on objective reasonableness)
- Pinizzotto v. Superior Court, 257 Cal.App.2d 582 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (second search may be improper if others are unaware of prior consent)
- Gorg v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.2d 776 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1955) (early discussion of whether repeated searches fall within consent, dicta on scope)
- Reid (Commonwealth v. Reid), 811 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2002) (objective evaluation of consent scope for multiple searches)
- Nawrocki, 150 N.W.2d 516 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) (consent to search ‘at any time’ may cover later impound searches)
- Trujillo, 576 P.2d 179 (Colo. App. 1978) (temporal scope of consent is a question of fact to be decided by circumstances)
- Ferguson v. Caldwell, 213 S.E.2d 855 (Ga. 1975) (second search within ongoing investigation may be lawful)
- State v. Douglas, 365 N.W.2d 580 (Wis. 1985) (reentry into home requires warrant or separate basis; residence vs automobile distinction)