Motion to Suppress Evidence: Understanding California Penal Code § 1538.5
California Penal Code § 1538.5 provides a crucial legal mechanism for defendants to challenge evidence obtained through potentially unlawful searches or seizures. This article by brief writer Darren Chaker expands goes into the intricacies of suppression motions and their significance in criminal defense, while also noting to not rely on this as legal advice.
Key Elements of Penal Code § 1538.5 to File a California Motion to Suppress Evidence
Penal Code § 1538.5 allows defendants to move for the suppression of evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure. The statute states:
“A defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds:
(A) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.
(B) The search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable because any of the following apply:
(i) The warrant is insufficient on its face.
(ii) The property or evidence obtained is not that described in the warrant.
(iii) There was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
(iv) The method of execution of the warrant violated federal or state constitutional standards.
(v) There was any other violation of federal or state constitutional standards.”
Timing and Procedure to File a California Motion to Suppress Evidence
For misdemeanor cases, the motion must be made before trial, unless the opportunity to make the motion did not exist or the defendant was unaware of the grounds for the motion. In felony cases, the motion can be made at the preliminary hearing or in a special hearing.
The burden of proof initially lies with the defendant to establish that a warrantless search or seizure occurred. Once this is shown, the burden shifts to the prosecution to justify the search or seizure.
California Motion to Suppress Evidence: Grounds for Suppression Under Penal Code § 1538.5
Common grounds for suppression include, but are not limited to:
-
Unlawful traffic stop
-
Improper execution of a search warrant
-
Warrantless search without valid exception
-
Miranda violations
While the above are some of the most common grounds, Legal Researcher Darren Chaker notes, such does not mean they are always successful grounds requiring his or her motion to suppress evidence is granted. The automobile exception provides “police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. [Citations.]” ( People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 753, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 323.)
Motion to Suppress Evidence Where The Affidavit Demonstrates Police Deliberately Omitted Facts or Had a Reckless Disregard For The Truth
When police ignore information the result does not automatically result in granting a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code § 1538.5. Rather, as brief writer Darren Chaker points out, “When material information has been intentionally omitted from a warrant affidavit, the proper remedy is to restore the omitted information and reevaluate the affidavit for probable cause. [Citations.]” ( People v. Sousa (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 549, 562-563 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.2d 264].)
Prior to having a hearing, a defendant must demonstrate under Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L.Ed.2d 667, 98 S.Ct. 2674], that the officer deliberate or recklessly made material factual misrepresentation or omission and such actually impacted the determination of probable cause.
More specifically, the United States Supreme Court found in Franks, “To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. . . .”
Involuntary Consent to Search is a Commonly Litigated Issue in a Motion to Suppress Evidence
The voluntariness of consent is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of circumstances. (Illinois v Gates, 103 s Ct 2317 (1983).
Several California Court of Appeal decisions have addressed the issue of involuntary consent in the context of searches and seizures, providing further insight into how courts evaluate whether consent was truly voluntary. Common themes in rulings where the court grants a motion to suppress evidence often revolve around that consent obtained through duress or coercion could not be considered valid. For consent to be valid, it must be the product of free will, and any form of duress or improper influence would render the consent involuntary.
If the validity of a consent is challenged, the prosecution must prove it was freely and voluntarily given, or as the United States Supreme Court put it, “that it was [not] coerced by threats or force, or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority.” (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 227 [ 36 L.Ed.2d 854, 93 S.Ct. 2041]
These decisions highlight the importance of ensuring that consent to searches and seizures is given voluntarily and knowledgeably. When consent is coerced, it undermines the defendant’s constitutional rights, and the evidence obtained as a result of such consent may be inadmissible in court. Consequently, California courts continue to prioritize protecting individuals from coerced or involuntary consent in the context of criminal proceedings.
While Consent May be Invalid an Exception May Apply Preventing Suppression of Evidence
Even in the best case scenario where, for example, it is determined consent is held invalid, such may not require the suppression of evidence. In a perfect world the court finds consent to be invalid and all evidence is subsequently suppressed due to the “fruit of the poisonous tree,” though actually procured as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation against the defendant, if it inevitably would have been obtained by lawful means in any event. (Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U.S. 431, 441-448 [ 81 L.Ed.2d 377, 104 S.Ct. 2501] ( Nix).)
One of many examples, would police pull over a car and for a broken headlight. It is discovered the driver has a suspended license, so may not drive the car once cited. Prior to telling the driver he has a suspended license, he asks for consent to search, and the driver agrees. Drugs are found and a motion to suppress is filed.
The court finds while consent was invalid, the drugs would have been found during an inventory search of the vehicle prior to police having towed. Thus, discovery of the drugs would have been inevitable due to the standard policy of police to conduct an inventory search of the car. An inventory search is not to discover contraband, but “to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” (Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S. Ct. 738 (1987).) The realty is, police are aware of the upside to having the authority, consistent with department policy, to inspect each inch of a vehicle.
This exception to the Fourth Amendment would be deemed in furtherance of law enforcement’s “community caretaking purpose, such as promoting public safety or the efficient flow of traffic.” (United States v. Torres (9th Cir., 2016) 828 F.3d 1113, 1118.) As the Court held in, People v. Torres (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 775, 786, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 48″The decision to impound the vehicle must be justified by a community caretaking function ‘other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity’ [citation] because inventory searches are ‘conducted in the absence of probable cause’ [citation].”
In other words, “To determine whether a warrantless search is properly characterized as an inventory search, ‘we focus on the purpose of the impound rather than the purpose of the inventory.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 867, 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 512.)
Nonetheless, even absent consent, the automobile exception may apply allowing, “police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found. [Citations.]” (People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 753, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 323.)
An officer with probable cause, “may conduct a probing search of compartments and containers within the vehicle whose contents are not in plain view.” (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 800, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2160, 72 L.Ed.2d 572, 578.)
Impact of Successful Suppression Often Results in The Suppression of Evidence
If evidence is suppressed, it cannot be used against the defendant at trial. This can significantly weaken the prosecution’s case, often leading to dismissal or reduced charges.
Recent California Courts of Appeal Decisions on Suppress Evidence Based on Penal Code § 1538.5:
-
People v. Ovieda (2019): The California Supreme Court clarified that the community caretaking exception does not justify warrantless entry into a home.
-
Blakes v. The Superior Court, 72 Cal.App.5th 904, 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021): The court found, “That warrantless search was not supported by probable cause and the impound rationale was no more than a pretext to justify the search. The magistrate and trial court erred in denying the suppression motion.”
-
People v. Flores (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 420: The court ruled that officers’ warrantless entry into a home based on the smell of marijuana was unlawful, given California’s legalization of cannabis.
-
People v. Tacardon (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1047: The court found that a prolonged traffic stop to wait for a drug-sniffing dog violated the Fourth Amendment.
-
People v. Lopez (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 515: The court held that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain a person based solely on an anonymous tip without corroboration.
Conclusion
Penal Code § 1538.5 remains a vital tool for protecting defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. As case law continues to evolve, defense attorneys must stay informed to effectively challenge unlawful searches and seizures.