Munoz

People v. Munoz

Good Law
167 Cal. App. 4th 126·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1470·83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2008G039305California3,282 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

The Orange County District Attorney appeals from an order suppressing evidence he intended to rely upon in the prosecution of Alma Lilia Munoz and Gilbert Prado. The evidence was uncovered during the search of a motel room occupied by Munoz and Prado, after police officers made a warrantless entry into the room without obtaining consent from either Munoz or Prado. The prosecutor acknowledges there were no exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless entry, and argues only that Munoz and Prado lacked any expectation of privacy in the room because one of the $20 bills Munoz had used to pay the day’s rental was apparently counterfeit.

We affirm the order. On appeal, we are required to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision, and to draw all inferences in support of it. Thus, in the absence of conclusive evidence demonstrating Munoz was aware that one of the bills she used to secure an additional day’s lodging was counterfeit, and thus that she intended to defraud the motel, we must presume she did not. A motel occupant who unknowingly pays for her lodging with counterfeit money, and without any intention to defraud, does not lose…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.