Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. FJ39098, Shep Zebberman, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.
Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and John R. Gorey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Retired judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Alejandro G. appeals from an order that he remain a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) entered after the juvenile court found true the allegation appellant possessed cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a). Appellant contends the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of the drugs when the detaining officer stopped his vehicle for failure to display a front and rear license plate. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Around 5:00 p.m. on May 1, 2007, Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff David Duran was on uniform patrol with his partner, Deputy Lucero. While they were traveling on Olympic Boulevard in the area of south Amalia Avenue, Deputy Duran, the passenger in the police car, observed a gray primer-colored Ford F-150 truck make a northbound turn onto Amalia Avenue. The truck was approximately 100 feet in front of the police car. Deputy Duran observed that the truck did not have either a front or rear license plate. He did not notice any type of registration stickers on the windows of the truck. Although the deputies followed the truck in order to effectuate a traffic stop, they did not have the opportunity to initiate a stop because the truck pulled over and both occupants got out of the truck.
The deputies pulled up next to the truck, got out of their car, and spoke to the occupants of the truck regarding driving without license plates. Deputy Duran asked appellant, the driver of the truck, for his name and driver’s license. Appellant gave a false name and stated that he did not have a driver’s license. Deputy Duran detained appellant pending an unlicensed driver investigation. Deputy Duran did not ask appellant for registration, and appellant did not tell him the truck was registered. A post arrest search of appellant revealed the cocaine.
The juvenile court denied appellant’s suppression motion, finding there was a reasonable basis to detain appellant and investigate a potential violation of Vehicle Code section 5200. Appellant subsequently admitted possession of the cocaine. Because there had been other Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceedings in which the juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court, the juvenile court, in this case, continued appellant as a ward of the court and placed him home on probation subject to various terms and conditions.
Vehicle Code section 5200 provides: “(a) When two license plates are issued by the department for use upon a vehicle, they shall be attached to the vehicle for which they were issued, one in the front and the other in the rear. [¶] (b) When only one license plate is issued for use upon a vehicle, it shall be attached to the rear thereof, unless the license plate is issued for use upon a truck tractor, in which case the license plate shall be displayed in accordance with Section 4850.5.”
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends Deputy Duran unlawfully detained him, and therefore the juvenile court should have suppressed evidence derived from the traffic stop. We disagree.
The issue of whether traffic stops are permissible to determine whether a vehicle that lacks license plates has a temporary permit or if a displayed permit is valid is currently before the California Supreme Court in three cases: People v. Dean (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 377, review granted April 9, 2008, S160418; People v. Hernandez (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 773, review granted March 21, 2007, S150038; and In re Raymond C. (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1320, review granted March 21, 2007, S149728.
“In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court must find the historical facts, select the rule of law, and apply it to the facts in order to determine whether the law as applied has been violated. [Citation.] We review the court’s resolution of the factual inquiry under the deferential substantial evidence standard. The ruling on whether the applicable law applies to the facts is a mixed question of law and fact that is subject to independent review.” (People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 505.)
“[P]ersons in automobiles on public roadways may not for that reason alone have their travel and privacy interfered with at the unbridled discretion of police officers.” (Delaware v. Prouse (1979) 440 U.S. 648, 663.) However, officers having an articulable and reasonable suspicion that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of the law, may detain the driver to check his or her driver’s license and the vehicle’s registration. (Ibid.; see Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 109.)
Appellant’s truck lacked front and rear license plates, and Deputy Duran did not see any temporary registration. Therefore, the deputy suspected a violation of Vehicle Code section 5200, subdivision (a). “The question for us, though, is not whether [the] vehicle was in fact in full compliance with the law at the time of the encounter, but whether [the officer] had ‘“articulable suspicion”’ it was not.” (People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1129, 1136, citing Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) 497 U.S. 177, 184.) The possibility of an innocent explanation for missing license plates does not preclude an officer from detaining the motorist to investigate an apparent Vehicle Code violation. (Ibid; see Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 125-126.)
In this case, the juvenile court found Deputy Duran entertained a reasonable suspicion that appellant had not complied with Vehicle Code section 5200, and substantial evidence supports this conclusion. Deputy Duran testified that as he drove behind appellant’s truck he observed the vehicle did not have license plates but did not see a temporary tag placed in the window. Appellant argued that a temporary operating permit was displayed on the rear window of the vehicle. However, halfway down on the permit it says: “Incomplete application. See above. This is not an operating permit.” The juvenile court did not find appellant credible. Thus, having observed nothing on his approach from the rear of the truck showing it was registered, Deputy Duran was entitled to continue his investigation. Once Deputy Duran lawfully pulled up at the stopped truck, it was not unreasonable for him to contact the driver to request his license and explain the reason for the stop. Deputy Duran’s search of appellant occurred after a lawful arrest of appellant for driving without a California driver’s license. (Veh. Code, § 12500.) Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Vogel, Acting P. J. Rothschild, J.