Medina

People v. Medina

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 546·110 Cal. App. 4th 171
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 3, 2003B159372California2,519 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 173 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 174 May officers, as a matter of standard procedure and in the name of "officer safety," detain and frisk a driver stopped for an equipment infraction solely on the basis that the stop occurs in a high crime area at night? Here we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not permit such an intrusion and that any incriminating evidence flowing from the illegal contact, which may include statements made by the driver, is inadmissible. Roman Medina appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine found on his person and in his vehicle, as well as statements he made to the police at the time of his detention and search. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5 .) After the court denied his motion, Medina pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. (Health Saf. Code, § 11350 , subd. (a).) Entry of judgment was deferred, and Medina was placed on probation. He contends that the cocaine and the…

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.