People v. Velazquez-Cordero CA1/3, A156420

Defendant was convicted for participating in the 2016 Daly City bank robbery; investigators tied him to the crime through surveillance, witness statements, and cell‑phone data from a T‑Mobile number (the “Vortex” phone).
Judge Jeffrey R. Finigan initially signed a warrant for the Vortex phone records but later quashed that warrant for lack of probable cause after a defense motion in the 16NF case.
Police then obtained a second warrant from Judge Robert D. Foiles for the same phone’s T‑Mobile location data; the Foiles warrant was later used to collect location records.
In the 16NF proceeding, Judge Clifford V. Cretan ruled on 9/14/17 that the location data could not be admitted in that trial, citing Penal Code §1538.5(d) and concerns about fairness and timing; he did not rule on the Foiles warrant’s merits.
The prosecution dismissed the 16NF case and refiled as 17NF; in the 17NF case Judge Cretan later ruled the Foiles warrant supported admission of the T‑Mobile records. Defendant appealed, contending the People were barred under §1538.5(j) and (p) from relitigating/admitting the same evidence.
The Court of Appeal affirmed: the 9/14/17 ruling did not constitute a second suppression ruling under §1538.5, so the two‑adjudication bar in subdivision (p) did not apply and the evidence was admissible in the 17NF prosecution.

Issue	People’s Argument	Velazquez‑Cordero’s Argument	Held
Whether Judge Cretan’s 9/14/17 ruling constituted a suppression ruling under Penal Code §1538.5	The 9/14/17 ruling was procedural and merely excluded the evidence in that proceeding; it did not secondarily suppress the search so it is not a §1538.5 suppression ruling	The 9/14/17 exclusion was an adverse suppression ruling and thus constituted a second suppression under §1538.5	The court held the 9/14/17 ruling was not a suppression ruling under §1538.5(a)(1); it did not decide the merits of the Foiles warrant or reexamine the Finigan warrant and was based on procedural/fairness grounds
Whether §1538.5(p)’s two‑adjudication limit barred admission of the phone location data in the new 17NF prosecution	Only one adverse suppression ruling occurred (Finigan’s quash); subdivision (p) does not bar admission based on a prior procedural exclusion; People may rely on the independently obtained Foiles warrant	Two adverse rulings occurred (Finigan and Cretan), so subdivision (p) bars refiling/relitigation and admission of the same evidence	The court held subdivision (p) did not bar admission because the People had not suffered two suppression rulings as defined by §1538.5(a)(1); the Foiles warrant’s records were admissible in the 17NF case

People v. Williams, 20 Cal.4th 119 (overview of §1538.5 suppression‑motion framework)
People v. Superior Court (Jimenez), 28 Cal.4th 798 (legislative history and purpose of §1538.5 amendments permitting prosecution a second opportunity)
People v. Jackson, 96 Cal.App.4th 1265 (discussion of avenues of relief under §1538.5(j))
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule discussed by trial court)