Leal

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), 1 defendant Raul Anthony Leal pleaded no contest to obliterating the identification of a firearm (§ 12090). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He argued that the search conducted incident to his arrest was beyond the scope of the arm’s reach rule of Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 ]. He also challenged the imposition of a probation condition that he may not be present at any court proceeding or in any courthouse building unless he is scheduled for a court hearing or has the *1056 permission of his probation officer. He contended that the condition was unreasonable and violated his constitutional rights to travel and to attend court proceedings.

This court reversed the judgment on the basis of defendant’s first claim. The California Supreme Court granted the People’s petition for review and deferred action pending the United States Supreme Court’s disposition of Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S._[ 173 L.Ed.2d…

I concur in the judgment only. When this court’s decision was originally filed in February 2008, I wrote a dissent in which I stated; “The officers acted reasonably and out of concern for their safety when they handcuffed and moved defendant and then delayed the search for two to three minutes in order to do a protective sweep of the residence. The officers were aware that defendant was reportedly possibly armed with a firearm and using drugs, they did not take defendant far away, and they did not unreasonably delay before conducting the search. [Citations.] The loaded pistol was found in the recliner about two or three minutes after defendant was arrested and while defendant was still at the scene of the arrest. [Citations.] The officers were not required ‘either to |forgo] search incident to arrest, or to keep [defendant] at least figuratively within arm’s reach [of the recliner\ while conducting ... a search’ of it. [Citations.] To keep defendant at the exact location of the arrest while conducting an absolutely contemporaneous Chimel search would assure the very danger the search was meant to prevent.”

In Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S._,_[ 173 L.Ed.2d 485 , 129 S.Ct. 1710 ],…

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), [1] defendant Raul Anthony Leal pleaded no contest to obliterating the identification of a firearm (§ 12090). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He argued that the search conducted incident to his arrest was beyond the scope of the arm's reach rule of Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 685 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 ]. He also challenged the imposition of a probation condition that he may not be present at any court proceeding or in any courthouse building unless he is scheduled for a court hearing or has the permission of his probation officer. He contended that the condition was unreasonable and violated his constitutional rights to travel and to attend court proceedings.

This court reversed the judgment on the basis of defendant's first claim. The California Supreme Court granted the People's petition for review and deferred action pending the United States Supreme Court's disposition of Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. ___ [ 173…