P.

P. v. McQueen CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2013D062025California2,712 words

Opinion

Opinion

Irion, J.

DISCUSSION

A. The Trial Court Properly Denied the Motion to Suppress

McQueen contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the

evidence of the contents of the sunglasses case and the money in his pockets, arguing that

(1) the evidence of the narcotics contained in the sunglasses case was obtained pursuant

3 to an illegal search, and (2) the discovery of the money in McQueen's pockets in a search

incident to arrest for narcotics possession was the fruit of the same illegal search.

1. Standard of Review

" ' "An appellate court's review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is

governed by well-settled principles. [Citations.] [¶] In ruling on such a motion, the trial

court (1) finds the historical facts, (2) selects the applicable rule of law, and (3) applies

the latter to the former to determine whether the rule of law as applied to the established

facts is or is not violated. [Citations.] 'The [trial] court's resolution of each of these

inquiries is, of course, subject to appellate review.' [Citations.] [¶] The court's

resolution of the first inquiry, which involves questions of fact,…

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.