California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. 15F-03787, John
A. Trice, Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Alvarez Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb and David W. Williams,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
by Yegan, J., Acting P. J., with Perren and Tangeman, JJ.,
Cal.Rptr.3d 257] YEGAN, J., Acting P. J.
interaction between a peace officer and a person suspected of
committing a crime is not a game. It is serious business.
Knowing that his " goose was cooked" if the officer
conducted a search, appellant attempted what was tantamount
to a " do it yourself" suppression motion. During
the course of his detention, he took off his coat [210
Cal.Rptr.3d 258] and threw it into his car. Then he threw the
car keys into his car. Then he locked the car thinking that
the police would not be able to lawfully gain entry and
search. This was a game of " hide and seek," which
he was bound to lose. It was a sophomoric attempt to thwart
the lawful seizure of evidence and a crime itself, i.e., a
willful obstructing of a peace officer. (Pen. Code, §
148, subd. (a)(1).) A person detained for investigation has
no constitutional right to dispose of evidence. ( People
v. Bracamonte (1975) 15 Cal.3d 394, 405, fn. 6 [124
Cal.Rptr. 528, 540 P.2d 624]; People v. Maddox
(1956) 46 Cal.2d 301, 306 [294 P.2d 6].)
Grant Quick appeals his conviction by plea to possession for
sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11378), entered after the trial court denied his
motion to suppress evidence made pursuant to Penal Code
section 1538.5. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, appellant
admitted suffering a prior strike conviction and was
sentenced to four years in state prison. He contends that the
trial court erred in ruling that the vehicle inventory search
was reasonable and incident to a lawful arrest for driving
under the influence. He argues that the police detained and
arrested him as a ruse to conduct a narcotics investigation.
and Procedural History
Police Officer Matthew Chesson received a call from a
narcotics detective that appellant had just left his
residence in a black Mercury. Earlier that day, Officer
Chesson was advised that ...