
P.C. § 1538.5 Motions and Illegal Detentions
P.C. § 148(a)(1) When Perpetrated During an Unlawful Detention
The exclusionary rule does not apply to a new and distinct crime occurring during or immediately after a detention, whether the detention was lawful or not. Therefore, the lawfulness of a suspect’s detention is not relevant at a motion to suppress pursuant to P.C. § 1538.5 when charged only with resisting arrest.
Defendant was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offense of resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer in the performance of his (or her) duties, pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of Penal Code § 148. The underlying facts leading to this charge were not described in the Court’s decision. Defendant moved pursuant to P.C. § 1538.5 to suppress, arguing that his initial detention was illegal. The People responded by arguing that defendant was not entitled to such a hearing, submitting that the lawfulness of his detention is irrelevant to the charge of P.C. § 148(a)(1). The trial court agreed, denying defendant’s motion without a hearing. However, the Appellate Department of the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeal ordered the matter transferred to them.
The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 6) affirmed the trial court’s decision (thus reversing the Appellate Department of the Superior Court). Pen. Code § 1538.5(c)(1) provides that: “(w)henever a search or seizure motion is made in the superior court as provided in this section, the judge or magistrate shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.” (Italics added) Citing In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1252, the People argued that this is to be interpreted to mean that the exclusionary rule does not apply to a new and distinct crime occurring during or immediately after a detention, whether the detention was lawful or not. Pursuant to Richard G, ....