People v. Johnson

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). His appeal from the judgment (order granting probation) attacks the order denying his motion to suppress (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m)).

In reviewing a ruling by the court on a section 1538.5 motion, all factual conflicts must be resolved in the manner most favorable to the trial court’s disposition of the motion; the function of the reviewing court is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings. (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 107 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ].)

*178 At the suppression hearing in the trial court, defendant contended that (1) the game warden had no probable cause to institute a search of his vehicle, and (2) the consent given to the sheriff’s officer to search defendant’s vehicle- was a “fruit” of the game warden’s illegal search of the vehicle. The same contentions are repeated on appeal. (See Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626, 640 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 585 , 511 P.2d 33 ].)

On November 12, 1978, the second day of pheasant season, Lieutenant Orange, a fish and game officer, observed a vehicle…

I concur in the result and in the opinion except for the court’s reliance on Fish and Game Code section 1006.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351). His appeal from the judgment (order granting probation) attacks the order denying his motion to suppress (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m)).

(1) In reviewing a ruling by the court on a section 1538.5 motion, all factual conflicts must be resolved in the manner most favorable to the trial court's disposition of the motion; the function of the reviewing court is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings. ( People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 107 [ 137 Cal. Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ].)

At the suppression hearing in the trial court, defendant contended that (1) the game warden had no probable cause to institute a search of his vehicle, and (2) the consent given to the sheriff's officer to search defendant's vehicle was a "fruit" of the game warden's illegal search of the vehicle. The same contentions are repeated on appeal. (See Lorenzana v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 626, 640 [ 108 Cal. Rptr. 585 , 511 P.2d 33 ].)

On November 12, 1978, the second day of pheasant season, Lieutenant Orange, a fish and game officer,…