Valencia

People v. Valencia

Good Law
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 25·201 Cal. App. 4th 922·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 1536
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 8, 2011No. B229392California7,595 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Zelon, J.

*925 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

After being pulled over for a traffic violation, appellant Alejandro Valencia gave a Los Angeles police officer consent to search his pickup truck. The officer conducted a brief search and found nothing incriminating. During the search, a second officer discovered that Valencia might have outstanding arrest warrants. The officers transported Valencia and his vehicle to a local police station, where a third officer reinspected the truck and found a bindle containing approximately three grams of cocaine. Valencia was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of sale.

Valencia filed a motion to suppress arguing that the second search of his vehicle exceeded the scope of his consent. The trial court denied the motion and Valencia pled no contest to the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd (a).)

On appeal, Valencia contends that the second search of his vehicle did not fall within the scope of his consent, and, as a result, the trial court should have granted his motion'to suppress. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Summary of Events Preceding Valencia’s Arrest

On April…

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.