P.

P. v. Rowland CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 2013B240508California2,800 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

Viewed in accordance with the usual rule of appellate review (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established the following. 1. Prosecution evidence. On the afternoon of November 2, 2011, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Nathan Grimes and his partner visited the manager of an apartment complex in Lancaster to discuss recent narcotics activity there. During the visit, Grimes witnessed what “appeared to be a hand-to-hand [drug] transaction” between defendant Rowland and another person, although Grimes was too far away to see what had been exchanged. Soon after, Rowland drove off in his van.1 Grimes and his partner left in their patrol car in order to keep an eye on him. Moments later, Rowland failed to stop at a limit line and failed to signal while changing lanes, so Grimes made a traffic stop. When Grimes approached the van, he noticed a strong odor of marijuana. He ordered Rowland to exit and asked if he had anything illegal. Rowland said he had marijuana and consented to a search. Inside his pocket, Rowland had a container of marijuana. He also had $450 in one pocket and $51 in a second pocket. There was a cell phone on the driver’s seat.…

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.