DO NOT COPY FROM OTHERS !! IT WELL GET DOWNVOTE

Facts: (This is the story that gives rise to the case. What facts are at the root of the controversy? What is the defendant accused of? Why was he arrested? Provide details that may be important to the case. If in doubt, include more detail here rather than less. Facts end with and include the arrest in a criminal case. 10 points.)

Procedural History: (This what happened in the trial court. Start this part with what the defendant is charged with. Procedurally, what has happened in this case? What are the legal theories (murder? Kidnapping? Possession? etc.) that the prosecution is using? Was there a motion? Who won it? Did the defendant plead guilty or did he go to trial? Was he convicted? Was he sentenced? Who is appealing? Why? Do not include the outcome of the appeal here. 10 points.)

Issue: (This is the question(s) that this appeals court is trying to answer by hearing this case. There may be more than one question. If so, state them all, each in a separate numbered paragraph. Look for the appellants appeals argument(s). The issues are often based on these arguments. The issues are questions only, no background, no answers, just questions. 15 points.)

Result/Holding: (This is the answer to the issue. If there are three issues, there will be three results. This is a good part to quote making sure you use quotation marks. Number these and put each one in a separate short numbered paragraph. 15 points.)

Reasoning: (The is the courts explanation of how it went from its issue to its result/holding. This is usually the longest part of the brief. Its the part where the justice discusses the Constitution, cases/precedent, and/or statutes. Discuss each issue in a separate paragraph. Follow the RAC format discussed in chapter 1 (page 10, section 1-3d: rule/law, analysis/application, conclusion for each issue. RAC is also discussed on pages A2 and A3 in the appendix. 25 points.)

Procedural Consequences: (This indicates whether the appeals court agrees with the trial courts decision. Usually one or more of the following words is used: affirmed, reversed, modified, and/or remanded, and is often the last sentence of the case. This part is usually just one sentence long. 5 points.)

Use the above format, since part of your grade (20 points) will be based on correct formatting. Your brief should be typewritten, double-spaced, and at least two pages in length.

Overview: During a traffic stop, the officer asked if he could search defendant's car "real quick." Defendant consented to the search. The officer conducted an exhaustive search of all compartments of the car and found no contraband. About 15 minutes after defendant gave his consent to search, the officer told defendant that he was going to have a police dog come out to sniff the car. According to the officer, defendant never questioned the length of the search. While waiting for the dog to arrive, the officer used a screwdriver to remove a panel from a small mechanical device that he found in defendant's trunk. The officer found a paper bag containing cocaine inside the device. The court concluded that the search exceeded the boundaries of defendant's consent under the Fourth Amendment. A reasonable person would not have understood defendant's consent to a "real quick" search to include authorization to unscrew a panel on a piece of equipment during a second search of the trunk while awaiting the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog. Once the officer's initial search revealed no contraband, defendant's consent ended, and there was no justification to prolong his detention.

Summary

California Official Reports Summary

After denying defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court convicted defendant of transporting and possessing cocaine for sale. During a traffic stop, an officer asked if he could search defendant's car "real quick." Defendant consented to the search. The officer conducted an exhaustive search of all compartments of the car and found no contraband. About 15 minutes after defendant gave his consent to search, the officer told defendant that he was going to have a police dog come out to sniff the car. According to the officer, defendant was cooperative and never questioned the length of the search. While waiting for the police dog to arrive, the officer used a screwdriver to remove a panel from a small mechanical device that he found in defendant's trunk. The officer found a paper bag containing cocaine inside the device. (Superior Court of Orange County, No. 04HF1879, Richard F. Toohey, Judge.)

The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that the search exceeded the boundaries of defendant's consent under U.S. Const., 4th Amend. A reasonable person would not have understood defendant's consent to a "real quick" search to include authorization to unscrew a panel on a piece of equipment during a second search of the trunk while awaiting the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog. Once the officer's search of all compartments of the car revealed no contraband, defendant's consent ended, and there was no justification to prolong his detention. (Opinion by Rylaarsdam, Acting P. J., with Fybel and Ikola, JJ., concurring.)

Counsel: Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne McGinnis and Teresa Torreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Alexander Rudolf Cantor of transporting and possessing cocaine for sale. The police found the cocaine in a closed container in the trunk of defendant's car. Two weeks earlier, the police had found evidence of another drug offense in defendant's home. Defendant contends the evidence from the searches of his car and residence should have been suppressed as the fruit of illegal searches and that the drug evidence from defendant's residence was cumulative and more prejudicial than probative, violating his right to due process. We conclude the search of the container in defendant's car exceeded the scope of his consent and reverse on that basis. In light of our conclusion, it is unnecessary to address defendant's other contentions.

Facts and Procedural Background

One evening, police officer Tom Weizoerick and his partner stopped defendant for driving violations. Based on defendant's nervousness, his initial failure to yield after the officers had activated their overhead lights, his furtive movements, and the odor of marijuana, Weizoerick asked for and received consent to search defendant's car. In the trunk of the car, Weizoerick found 201 grams of cocaine inside a vinyl record cleaner. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted of transporting and possessing for sale a controlled substance.

Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his trunk. The motion was denied. We denied defendant's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the suppression of the evidence.

At the pretrial suppression hearing, Weizoerick testified that on the night in question, he and his partner were driving in a marked patrol car when he saw a red Mercedes tailgating another vehicle. The car switched lanes without signaling and sped up to approximately 80 miles per hour.

Weizoerick attempted to stop the car, but it failed to yield. He then activated his siren, but the vehicle still failed to yield. Eventually, it pulled over; as it did so, Weizoerick observed the driver (defendant) reach towards his floorboard.

Weizoerick asked defendant to step out of the vehicle. As defendant complied, Weizoerick detected the odor of marijuana and asked him if he had been smoking some "weed"; defendant said he had not. Weizoerick then asked if someone had been smoking it around him because he smelled like marijuana. Defendant appeared nervous; his hands were shaking and he avoided eye contact.

Weizoerick told defendant he saw him reaching over toward his seat as he was being pulled over and asked if defendant was hiding something. Defendant said he was not. Weizoerick then asked, "Nothing illegal in the car or anything like that? Mind if I check real quick and get you on your way?" Defendant answered, "yeah."

The smell of burnt marijuana was "a little bit stronger" inside the car. But a search of the passenger compartment did not turn up any marijuana cigarettes or drug paraphernalia and Weizoerick was unable to determine what could have been the source of the burnt marijuana smell. Next, Weizoerick retrieved the car keys from the ignition and opened the trunk. Defendant did not object, but he also did not assist Weizoerick, say anything, or make any gestures to indicate approval of the search of the trunk. Weizoerick looked through the trunk and closed it. After that, he checked under the hood of defendant's car and then rechecked the car's interior several times. Weizoerick told defendant he was going to have a police dog come out to sniff the car. According to Weizoerick, defendant said okay. Defendant was "very cooperative," and never questioned the length of the search.

While waiting for the police dog to arrive, Weizoerick removed items from the trunk that could pose a safety hazard to the dog. As he did so, he found a wooden box inside the trunk. Defendant said it was a record-cleaning machine. Weizoerick felt something shift inside the record cleaner and when he looked through the mesh screen on the side of the cleaner, he saw a paper bag inside. Using a screwdriver, Weizoerick removed the screws holding the back panel of the record cleaner. He lifted out the paper bag and inside found the cocaine at issue.

The standard of review for the denial of a motion to suppress is well settled. "We defer to the trial court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.

(1) Consent to a search is a recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The prosecution bears the burden to prove that a warrantless search was within the scope of the consent given. "A consensual search may not legally exceed the scope of the consent supporting it. "The standard for measuring the scope of a suspect's consent under the Fourth Amendment is that of 'objective' reasonableness--what would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect? "Whether the search remained within the boundaries of the consent is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of circumstances. Unless clearly erroneous, we uphold the trial court's determination.

The trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to recognize the limited scope of defendant's consent. Once Weizoerick's exhaustive search of all compartments of the car revealed no contraband, defendant's consent ended. No justification existed to prolong defendant's detention.

The limited consent given by defendant differentiates this case from those cited by the Attorney General. [consent to search interior, glove compartment, and trunk of car].) We reject the Attorney General's argument that defendant's failure to object indicates the prolonged search was within his consent. In United States v. Espinosa (10th Cir. 1986) 782 F.2d 888, 892-893 and the other cited cases, the officers did not exceed the scope of the defendants' consent before the object of the search was found, contrary to this case.

We find Wells persuasive and adopt its reasoning. A piece of equipment that can only be opened with a screwdriver is analogous to a locked or sealed container. Defendant manifested an expectation of privacy by placing the drugs inside the record cleaning machine and screwing it shut. By unscrewing the back panel, the officer rendered that act pointless and violated defendant's privacy expectation.

The cases cited by the Attorney General are inapposite. Unlike in Jimeno, United States Currency, and Crenshaw, the officer in this case did not notify defendant of the object of his search, making it difficult to impute to defendant consent to search any container within the car that might contain such object. Nor do any of the cited cases address the search of a locked or sealed container inside a car. Crenshaw and Sierra-Hernandez involved a search of a compartment of the vehicle itself.