 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hernandez6/27/2003
INTRODUCTION
On September 23, 2001, Officer Kurtis Powell of the California Highway Patrol observed a Chevy Blazer with a front license plate frame that was ringed with a neon purple light. Believing that this constituted a violation of the Vehicle Code, Officer Powell made a car stop and, in the course of his investigation, discovered that defendant had been driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Defendant brought a motion to suppress in the trial court, claiming that the officer lacked a reasonable basis for believing the neon purple light around the license plate frame was unlawful. Agreeing with Officer Powell that the light emitting from defendant's neon license plate frame could only be white or amber, the trial court denied the motion. We reverse.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In a complaint filed on September 26, 2001, defendant was charged in count 1 with a violation of Vehicle Code section 23152, subd.(a) (driving while under the influence of alcohol), and in count 2 with a violation of section 23152, subd.(b)(driving with a blood- alcohol level of .08 or more). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for driving under the influence .
Following the denial of his suppression motion, defendant pled guilty to count 2 and admitted the allegations of two prior convictions.
On appeal, defendant's attorney submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 [158 Cal.Rptr. 839], requiring this court to independently review the record for arguable issues. After our review, we directed the parties to brief the issue of whether the purple neon light emitting from defendant's front license plate frame was a proper basis for the traffic stop.
DISCUSSION
At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, Officer Powell testified he made the stop " or unlawful lighting to the front.... Amber and white are the only two authorized lights that's permitted to the front of the vehicle." Relying on section 25950, the trial court found that any light other than white or yellow was illegal and denied the suppression motion.
A. The Standard of Review.
"The standard of appellate review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment." (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 [45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 425].)
B. The Basis for a Detention
A detention "may be undertaken by the police `if there is an articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.'" (In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 911 [239 Cal. Rptr. 663], quoting Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671].)
For traffic infractions, a police officer may lawfully stop a motorist "if the facts and circumstances known to the officer support at least a reasonable suspicion that the driver has violated the Vehicle Code or some other law." (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 926 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785].)
C. There Was Insufficient Evidence to Support a Reasonable Suspicion That the Purple Neon Light Around the License Plate Was Unlawful.
As stated earlier, the trial court relied on section 25950 in denying defendant's motion to suppress. Section 25950, subd. (a) provides, in relevant part, that "the emitted light from all lamps and the reflected light from all reflectors, visib
Page 1 2 3 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|