People v. Wilson

Opinion

I. Introduction

Defendant, Holly Faye Wilson, appeals after she was convicted of methamphetamine possession in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a) as a felony. On appeal, she contends that her motion to suppress the contraband and her statements should have been granted. The Attorney General argues defendant received an excessive grant of presentence credits. In the published portion of the opinion, we address the

After dressing, Mr. Walsh walked to the parking lot with Officer Vidal. When asked about the registration, Mr. Walsh claimed he had “no idea” about it. Mr. Walsh then claimed the car belonged to a girlfriend. He then changed his story and claimed the Cadillac belonged to a friend. Then he changed his explanation again and stated he did not know who owned the Cadillac. Then, Mr. Walsh changed his story again. He stated that the Cadillac belonged to his “girlfriend,” defendant, who remained in room 22.

Sergeant Hodgman remained with Mr. Walsh while Officer Vidal returned to room 22. Ten to twelve minutes had passed since Mr. Walsh accompanied Officer Vidal and Sergeant Hodgman to the parking lot from room 22. Officer Vidal knocked on the door of room 22 and it swung open “approximately a third” of the way. Prior to when he knocked on it, the door was described by Officer Vidal as being “in a closed position up against the jamb.” Officer Vidal saw defendant. She was reaching under one of the two beds with her left hand. Her hand was underneath one of the two beds when the door swung open. Officer Vidal could not see defendant’s left shoulder and arm which were under the bed. Officer Vidal then stepped into the room. He explained his reason for stepping into the motel room as follows: “Because of where she was, my not being able to see her hands, I wanted to get a position of advantage in case she came out with a weapon. You never know.” Officer Vidal further testified: “We are trained in day one in the academy the only way a suspect can hurt you is with their hands. The position under the bed. [1] I was there for a registration investigation, so I have no idea what I have, why her hands are under a bed. I thought maybe it would be a weapon.” Officer Vidal described his thoughts and movement into the room as follows, “Officer awareness kicks in and I opened the door a little further to see if there is anyone who can harm me and I stepped in.”

When Officer Vidal stepped into the room, defendant then stood up and was extremely nervous. As she began to stand up, Officer Vidal entered the room. Officer Vidal asked her who owned the blue Cadillac. She responded

D

efendant argues that when she was observed to be reaching under the bed by Officer Vidal as the door swung open and he stepped in to the room before the first question was asked concerning the drugs, no exigent circumstances warranted his entry. We disagree. This issue involves the application of the Fourth Amendment. Entry across the threshold into a motel room as occurred here normally requires a search warrant. (Stoner v. California (1964) 376 U.S. 483 , 486-490 [ 84 S.Ct. 889 , 892-894, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 ]; People v. Williams, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1297.) However, if there is a sufficient exigency, the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement may be excused. (Minnesota v. Olson (1990) 495 U.S. 91 , 100 [ 110 S.Ct. 1684 , 1690, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 ]; Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740 , 749-750 [ 104 S.Ct. 2091 , 2097, 80 L.Ed.2d 732 ].) (2) In People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354 , 365 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 425 , 902 P.2d 729 ], a case involving a temporary detention of a person at gunpoint, Associate Justice Werdegar articulated the test to be applied in determining whether there has been a Fourth Amendment violation as follows: “To test the detention against ‘the ultimate standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment’ ([Michigan v. ]Summers [(1981) 452 U.S. 692 , 699-700 [ 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 2593, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 ]]), we balance the extent of the intrusion against the government interests justifying it, looking in the final and dispositive portion of the analysis to the individualized and objective facts that made those interests applicable in the circumstances of the particular detention. (Terry [v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 ,] 21 [ 88 S.Ct. 1868 ,1879-1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ]; Summers, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 703 [69 L.Ed.2d at p. 350].)” The United States Supreme Court has mandated that we apply an objective test to the constitutional evaluation of the actions of Officer Vidal. (Ohio v. Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33 , _ [ 117 S.Ct. 417 , 419-421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 ]; Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 , 813-817 [ 116 S.Ct. 1769 ,1774-1776, 135

With these thoughts in mind, we evaluate the appropriateness of the conduct of Officer Vidal by first examining the “character of the official intrusion.” (Michigan v. Summers (1981) 452 U.S. 692 , 701 [ 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 2593, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 ]; People v. Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 365-366.) As noted previously, it is well established that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a motel room. The Attorney General rightly does not contest that an intrusion giving rise to constitutional protection occured in the present case. Normally absent exigent circumstances or a consent, a state official may not enter a motel room under these circumstances without securing the permission of a neutral and detached magistrate. The protection against arbitrary governmental action goes to the very essence of our concepts of ordered liberty in a constitutional democracy. (Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643 [ 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 ]; see Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) _ U.S._-_ [ 117 S.Ct. 2258 , 2268, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 ].) As in Glaser, though there are several factors that diminish the intrusiveness. To begin with, when he left the motel room with Officer Vidal and Sergeant Hodgman, Mr. Walsh did not completely close the door. The door was not entirely closed when Officer Vidal returned and knocked on it causing it to swing open. Further, Officer Vidal only took a single step into the room when he saw defendant reaching under the bed. This is different from cases where officer safety factors have been weighed and the entire premises were searched. (Cf. Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325 , 334 [ 110 S.Ct. 1093 , 1098-1099, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 ] [entire residence searched for other suspects].) Moreover, no seizure of defendant’s person occurred at the time of the intrusion. (Cf. Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) 444 U.S. 85 , 94 [ 100 S.Ct. 338 , 343-344, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 ] [search of all patrons in a tavern].) Moreover, defendant was not held at gunpoint, as was the case in Glaser, this factor reduces the intensity of the intrusion. (11 Cal.4th at p. 367; People v. Hannah (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1335 , 1343 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 ].) Finally, there was no evidence that any other person saw Officer Vidal step into the motel room. The fact a Fourth Amendment intrusion is not observed by others is a factor in determining its reasonableness. (Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 702 [101 S.Ct. at p. 2594]; People v. Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 367.)

The second aspect of Fourth Amendment analysis involves an evaluation of the justification for the step into the motel room by Officer Vidal. (Michigan v. Summers, supra, 452 U.S. at p. 701 [101 S.Ct. at p. 2593]; People v. Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at pp. 367-368.) As in People v. Glaser,

In making these assessments, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not to be interpreted so as to endanger police officers in the responsible performance of their duties. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, supra, 434 U.S. at page 110 [98 S.Ct. at page 333], citing Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at page 23 [88 S.Ct. at page 1881], the United States Supreme Court noted: “We think it too plain for argument that the State’s proffered justification—the safety of the officer—is both legitimate and weighty. ‘Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.’ [Citation.]” In Maryland v. Buie, supra, 494 U.S. at page 333 [110 S.Ct. at pages 1097-1098], in assessing the legitimacy of a sweep for hidden persons in a residence, the Supreme Court noted, “In Terry [v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at page 21 [88 S.Ct. at pages 1879-1800]] and [Michigan v.] Long [(1983) 463 U.S. 1032 ,1047 [ 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 3479-3480, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 ]] we were concerned with the immediate interest of the police officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the persons with whom they were dealing were not armed with, or able to gain immediate control of, a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against them. In the instant case, there is an analogous interest of the officers in taking steps to assure themselves that the house in which a suspect is being, or has just been, arrested is not harboring other persons who are dangerous and who could unexpectedly launch an attack. The risk of danger in the context of an arrest in the home is as great as, if not greater than, it is in an on-the-street or roadside investigatory encounter.”

When we apply the foregoing body of constitutional law to the official intrusion in the present case, Officer Vidal’s conduct in taking a step over the threshold so he could more clearly see defendant as she was reaching under one of the beds met the Fourth Amendment objective standard of reasonableness. Officer Vidal’s assessment that such a limited intrusion was necessary given the risks defendant was arming herself was objectively reasonable. Mr. Walsh, defendant’s companion, had indicated she was the

The circumstances in the present case are far more compelling than those present in Buie. In Buie, the authorities entered the defendant’s residence armed with an arrest warrant. There was no search warrant. While handcuffing the defendant, investigators fanned out throughout the residence in an effort to determine if other persons were present. The investigators had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to believe that anybody else was present. The United States Supreme Court held that the search for other persons based on the investigators’ concerns for their safety were reasonable. The court concluded: “We also hold that as an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched. Beyond that, however, we hold that there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. This is no more and no less than was required in Terry [v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at page 21 [88 S.Ct. at pages 1879-1880]] and [Michigan v.] Long [(1983) 463 U.S. 1032 , 1049-1050 [ 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 3479-3480, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 ]], and as in those cases, we think this balance is the proper one.” (Maryland v. Buie, supra, 494 U.S. at p. 334 [110 S.Ct. at p. 1098], fn. omitted.) In present case, there were specific articulable facts relating to a potential danger which, when viewed objectively, warranted Officer Vidal’s stepping into the room to be better prepared in the event defendant produced a weapon. Hence, defendant’s answers to Officer Vidal’s brief questions as to the blue Cadillac and what she was reaching for were proper. Further, her consent to search was not tainted by the brief inquiries.