NO LICENSE PLATES BUT MAYBE A PERMIT? SUPPRESSION MOTION DENIED!
This case is insanity at its worst. ere, the oficer saw the defendant driving a car with no license plates. He stopped the car and determined that the defendat was DUI, leading to a search and finding a firearm and methamphetamine. The officer was asked if he saw a temporary permit in the rear window; the officer did NOT say that there was no permit; he said he didn't remember.
Here's the incredible fact: the AG CONCEDED! We win, right? Wrong. The California Court of Appeal says that the officer saw that the car didn't have plates. They say that there was no evidence that the officer SAW a temporary permit, and they reject the contention that the officer had to make a reasonable effort to determine whether there was a permit. This is just wrong.
Remember Butler (202 Cal.App.3d 602), the case saying the police can't stop a car to determine whether tinted windows in the car are illegally tinted; they have to have PC to think that the windows were illegally tinted in order to make the stop. The California Court of Appeal says that there was no evidence that the defendant was displaying a permit, or that the ofr. saw it, so the suspicion raised by the absence of plates was not dispelled. This is totally
wrong, totally contrary to Hernandez (45 Cal.4th 294) and Butler, wrongly places the burden on the defense, and misses the point: the police need PC in order to stop in the first place!
But by far the best part of this case is that the AG conceded, so the California Court of Appeal has to make snarky comments about the contentions of ... the AG! They call their position
"facile." They complain that the AG cites no authority. You know, all the kind of language we typically see used to slam us. Sweet! And yet an outrage.
People v. Dotson; 2009 DJ DAR 16738; DJ, 12/1/09; C/A 3rd
