Davis

In a companion case decided today (People v. Hallman, ante, p. 1330 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 215 ]), this court concluded that “contrary to the procedure adopted in Wilder v. Superior Court [(1979)] 92 Cal.App.3d 90 , . . . trial court[s] can, by local rule, require the moving party in [Penal Code] section 1538.5 motions to set forth with specificity the grounds and theories to support the motion to suppress evidence.” (Ante, at p. 1333.) Like the defendant in Hallman, defendant Isabella Vaelua Davis here relies on Wilder to justify her failure to file detailed legal and factual arguments in support of her suppression motion. The majority opinion in Hallman declining to follow Wilder necessarily requires that we reject Davis’s arguments here.

Even had Hallman reached a different conclusion, however, reversal of this case would not be required. Here, in contrast to Hallman, the People assumed Wilder applied and did plead a theory of justification for the warrantless detention of Davis on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. Davis chose not to respond to the People’s submission. Finding that the pleadings “raised no disputed issue of fact,” the court denied the…