People v. Smith

Mark H. Smith appeals a judgment entered following his guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378). Smith contends the trial court erred by denying his Penal Code section 1538.5 1 motion to suppress evidence seized during a police search of the trunk of the car he was driving. He argues the prosecution did not prove, and the court precluded evidence and argument on whether, the search was properly conducted pursuant to a standardized police policy for inventory searches. He also contends the trial court erred by denying his supplemental section 1538.5 motion that requested an opportunity to fully litigate the issue of whether the search was properly conducted pursuant to a standardized police policy. Because we conclude the trial court *288 erred by denying Smith an opportunity to fully litigate whether the evidence was seized during a valid inventory search pursuant to a standardized police policy, we reverse the judgment and remand with directions for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

In October 1999, San Diego Police Officers Kevin Day and Gary Avalos stopped the car Smith was driving after…

I respectfully dissent.

The majority, citing Penal Code section 1538.5 and People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ] (Williams), essentially concludes that a defendant fully satisfies his burden of raising an issue when he asserts in his motion that the subject search was conducted without a warrant. Thus, the majority states that once the prosecution has replied to the motion and asserted reasonable justifications for the warrantless search, “The defendant may then file a reply challenging the prosecution’s justification. However, regardless of whether the defendant files a reply, the prosecution retains the burden of proof to establish its justification, and its burden of proof is not eliminated or diminished by the absence of the defendant’s reply.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 300, italics added.) I believe such conclusion is contrary to the teaching of Williams . I conclude that generally the defense is required by Williams to reply to the prosecution’s response and assert with reasonable specificity why the People’s claimed justification is lacking.

The intent of Williams and Penal Code section 1538.5 is to establish a motion procedure which…

McDonald, J.

Mark H. Smith appeals a judgment entered following his guilty plea to one count of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11378). Smith contends the trial court erred by denying his Penal Code section 1538.5 [1] motion to suppress evidence seized during a police search of the trunk of the car he was driving. He argues the prosecution did not prove, and the court precluded evidence and argument on whether, the search was properly conducted pursuant to a standardized police policy for inventory searches. He also contends the trial court erred by denying his supplemental section 1538.5 motion that requested an opportunity to fully litigate the issue of whether the search was properly conducted pursuant to a standardized police policy. Because we conclude the trial court erred by denying Smith an opportunity to fully litigate whether the evidence was seized during a valid inventory search pursuant to a standardized police policy, we reverse the judgment and remand with directions for further proceedings.

In October 1999, San Diego Police Officers Kevin Day and Gary Avalos stopped the car Smith was driving after they observed the absence of a…