P. v. Butler 6/14/11 CA3

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2011 » P. v. Butler 6/14/11 CA3

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: C064170

Case Date: 09/21/2011

Preview:Filed 6/14/11

P. v. Butler CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEMOND DUPREE BUTLER, Defendant and Appellant.

C064170 (Super. Ct. No. SF112462A)

Defendant Demond Dupree Butler appeals the trial courts denial of his motion to suppress evidence that includes a loaded handgun the police found underneath the drivers seat of the car defendant was driving. The police searched under the seat as

part of a "parole search" because the front seat passenger, Johnny Duckworth, was on parole. Defendant argued in the trial

court, as he does on appeal, that the search under the drivers seat went beyond the permissible reach of a parole search. disagree and affirm. We

1

BACKGROUND I. Factual Background1

Just after midnight on July 25, 2009, Officers Mohammed and Guerrero of the Stockton Police Department were driving behind a 1999 Honda Accord. Officer Mohammed noticed the red lens on the The

left brake light was cracked and initiated a traffic stop. car pulled over, and the officers approached the vehicle.

Officer Mohammed asked defendant (the driver) for his drivers license, registration, and insurance. information. Defendant provided the

Officer Mohammed also obtained the names and birth

dates of the front seat passenger and the two passengers in the back seat. Officer Mohammed returned to his patrol car and ran The records

a records check on all of the vehicle occupants.

check indicated that the front seat passenger, Johnny Duckworth, was on parole for residential robbery. Upon learning of Duckworths parole status, the officers decided to conduct a parole search and had everybody exit the vehicle. During this time, Duckworth was handcuffed and placed The other vehicle occupants were

in the back of the patrol car. seated on the curb.

During the parole search, Officer Guerrero

found a handgun directly underneath the drivers seat. Additional officers arrived on the scene, and the remaining vehicle occupants were handcuffed and placed into patrol cars.

1

The background facts are taken from evidence presented at a combined preliminary and suppression of evidence hearing held on September 24, 2009. 2

Officer Guerrero had Officer Mohammed look under the drivers seat to observe the gun. Before the officers handled the gun,

an evidence technician was called to the scene for photographing. Eventually Officer Mohammed removed the gun from

under the drivers seat and discovered it was loaded with six bullets. After being read his Miranda rights,2 defendant spoke with Officer Mohammed about the gun. Defendant stated that his

cousin was involved in an altercation earlier that night, and defendant took the gun away from his cousin before the matter escalated. about it. Defendant placed the gun in his vehicle and forgot Defendant indicated that he knew the gun was loaded,

but was unaware that it was illegal to carry a gun in the vehicle. II. Procedural Background

On September 28, 2009, the San Joaquin County District Attorney filed a two-count information against defendant charging him with possession of a firearm by a felon (count 1) and possession of ammunition by a felon (count 2). The

information further alleged that defendant had committed one prior strike and served two prior prison terms. A combined

preliminary and suppression of evidence hearing was held on September 24, 2009. The superior court judge, sitting as a

magistrate, denied the suppression motion and held defendant to

2

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694] (Miranda). 3

answer on the charges against him. motion, the magistrate stated: of a parole search. . . .

In denying the suppression

"Next issue would be the issue

A Honda, not a lot of distance The officers

between the drivers seat and passenger seat. would be allowed to look. [

Download P. v. Butler 6/14/11 CA3.pdf