People v. Soto CA4/2

facts, a statement of the case, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the

court erred in denying defendant’s first motion and in refusing to hear his third motion.

We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle in which defendant was sitting in the

back seat. The officer’s partner observed “illegal narcotics in plain view in the back

seat . . . .” The officers detained the driver and defendant. The officer’s partner showed

the officer “a plastic baggie, filled with a white, crystal-like substance.” Through his

“training and experience [the officer] immediately recognized the substance to be

Methamphetamine.” The substance field tested positive for methamphetamine. The

officer arrested defendant.

Defendant asked why the driver was also being arrested. The officer responded

that the driver had knowledge of the narcotics. Defendant replied, “‘But if it’s all mine,

why should he get in trouble?’”

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 The People charged defendant with transporting methamphetamine for sale.

(Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count…