Does Automobile Exception to Warrant Apply to Trunk?
On April 1, 2021, a team of Stockton Police Department officers were surveilling a funeral because the officers expected a criminal street gang connected in prior shootings to be in attendance.
Detective Edgar Guillen was in an unmarked vehicle and wearing plain clothes. His role was to relay his observations regarding any disturbances, altercations, violence or armed individuals to the other officers via radio broadcast.
While doing so, he recognized a 16-year old based on photographs he had seen and prior conversations that he had with other detectives as a result of a result shooting at the juvenile’s home. He was aware that the juvenile was on searchable probation with a firearm restriction.
Detective Guillen saw that the juvenile was holding something in his waistband as he was walking. Guillen believed it was a firearm. At one point, he saw the juvenile approach a female and point toward this concealed object with his hand as if to let her know he had a gun.
The female then walked with him. The juvenile was holding his pants waistband as if to hold his pants up, but also to hold the gun in place and keep in covered with his shirt.
The juvenile then contacted Hilario Leal, Jr., and the three walked to Leal’s car stopped by the closed trunk. The group did not open the car’s trunk.
Detective Guillen’s view of the juvenile and Mr. Leal was then obstructed for 10 to 15 seconds before Leal opened the car and the juvenile entered the backseat of the car and sat in a way that suggested he was “still in the waistband area” because he did not bend in the waist. The juvenile then laid down in the back seat. He then got out of the car and was no longer stiff in the waistband area.
As he got out of the car, he adjusted his pants and walked away from the car without holding his pants up as before.
Detective Guillen believed the juvenile had left the gun in the car’s passenger area, perhaps under a seat.
Mr. Leal then got in his car and drove a short distance before officers stopped the car outside a barbershop. Officers told Leal that they would be searching the car. According to officers, “Mr. Leal became nervous and told officers he did not want them searching his car.”
One officer then searched the car and found a liquor bottle under the passenger seat, but no gun anywhere in the car. The car was a Honda Civic, so the trunk area could be accessed from the passenger compartment by releasing a lever to fold a rear passenger seat forward.
Officers then decided to search the trunk and found a loaded Glock in Leal’s trunk.
Mr. Leal was then charged with carrying a loaded firearm in his car, as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to suppress the firearm, arguing that the warrant exception to the Fourth Amendment as stated by the “automobile exception” (People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal. App. 5th 796) did not extend to the trunk area.
The trial court denied the motion and Mr. Leal appealed to the Third Appellate District.
The Third District provided an exhaustive review of the Fourth Amendment and the automotive exception to the general warrant requirement.
The appellate court found from the trial court transcript from the motion to suppress hearing that the searching officer received information from Officer Guillen that a juvenile on probation with a firearm prohibition likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in Hilario Leal’s car before Leal got in his car and drove away. Defendant’s car was under constant surveillance from the time of the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search.
When a search of the passenger compartment found no gun, officers decided to search the trunk. Here, there was no probable cause to believe the firearm would be found in the trunk. The officers never saw Leal or anyone open the trunk, so the search of the trunk exceeded the permissible scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception.
The Third District therefore reversed the judgment against Mr. Leal with directions to the trial court to set aside the order denying Mr. Leal’s motion to suppress and to allow Mr. Leal to withdraw his plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona