Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Quick

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

November 22, 2016

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DANIEL GRANT QUICK, Defendant and Appellant

          Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. 15F-03787, John A. Trice, Judge.

Page 1007

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1008

         COUNSEL

         Christina Alvarez Barnes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Kamala 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.

         Opinion by Yegan, J., Acting P. J., with Perren and Tangeman, JJ., concurring.

          OPINION

          [210 Cal.Rptr.3d 257] YEGAN, J., Acting P. J.

          The 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].)

         Daniel 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. We affirm.

Page 1009

         Facts and Procedural History

         Atascadero 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.