Filed 1/9/20 P. v. Cambou CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SUZANN CAMBOU,

Defendant and Appellant.

B298313

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. LA090142)

APPEAL from order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

In an information filed on April 26, 2019, defendant and appellant Lisa Meister aka Suzann Cambou aka Lisa Meisyer aka Lisa Miesyer was charged with one count of identifying information theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (c)(2) [count 1]) and one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [count 2]).

On April 10, 2019, the trial court heard and denied Meister’s motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, after hearing the preliminary hearing testimony. On May 14, 2019, Meister moved for reconsideration of the 1538.5 motion, and the trial court again denied the motion to suppress. Meister appeals the trial court’s May 14, 2019 ruling.

At the preliminary hearing, one of the arresting officers testified that on March 10, 2019, at approximately 4:10 a.m., they observed Meister sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked Kia Optima with paper license plates. It was the officer’s understanding that recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 516 required that all vehicles display temporary license plates in compliance with the relevant amended Vehicle Code statutes as of January 1, 2019. The paper license plates displayed on the Kia were non-compliant. Specifically, the front plate was black and included the word “Car” and underneath that word, the words “Motors” and “Star” with a symbol of a star between them. The officers executed a U-turn and pulled up behind the Kia to investigate. The back plate was the same. The plates were not plates issued by the DMV.

Meister stepped out of the vehicle of her own accord. The officers then ordered her to step onto the sidewalk and detained her. The other arresting officer asked Meister if she was on probation, and she responded “‘Yes, for petty theft.’” The officer asked for identification and Meister began to give him a driver’s license from her purse, but then told him it was not hers. She said she planned to use the license to rent a hotel room. The officer recorded the vehicle number and his partner conducted a vehicle check. The officer’s partner told him that the vehicle had been reported stolen, and they arrested Meister.

The officers read Meister her Miranda rights. She spoke with them afterward, and explained that she had purchased the driver’s license from a friend. It was later determined that the driver’s license had been stolen.

Meister moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful search, arguing that the fact that the car she had exited bore paper plates was not sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that she was breaking the law. She asserted that Assembly Bill No. 516 excepted vehicles purchased before January 1, 2019, from complying with the license plates requirement for 90 days after the vehicle was purchased. Meister was detained on March 10, 2019, and could have been in compliance with the new legislation if she had purchased the Kia in late December of 2018.

The trial court rejected this argument. Photographic exhibits demonstrated that the paper license plates displayed on Meister’s vehicle were “dealer plates.” Under the trial court’s understanding of Assembly Bill No. 156, the plates were not authorized under the amendments. Citing to Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 574 U.S. 54 (Heien), the trial court ruled that, even if the officers’ interpretation of the new legislation and its own were incorrect, the officers’ mistaken understanding of the law was reasonable, such that there was reasonable suspicion to justify the initial detention. After Meister was detained and presented someone else’s driver’s license, the search and seizure of any other items was valid.

On May 17, 2019, Meister was advised of her constitutional rights and waived them on the record and pleaded no contest to the charge in count 1 of the information, identifying information theft with a prior conviction (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)), a felony. The trial court denied probation and sentenced Meister to the lower term of sixteen months. Meister did not obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of the plea.

Meister appealed from the denial of her motion to suppress under section 1538.5. After examination of the record, her appointed counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On October 24, 2019, we directed counsel to send the record on this appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Meister immediately, and ordered that Meister may, within 30 days, submit by brief or letter any grounds of appeal contentions or argument that she wishes this court to consider. We have received no response from Meister.

We have examined the record and are satisfied that Meister’s counsel has complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues for an appeal from the denial of the motion to suppress exist. The trial court based its denial of the motion to suppress under section 1538.5 on the officer’s testimony that he believed that the vehicle from which Meister exited from the driver’s seat, displayed illegal paper license plates in violation of amendments to the Vehicle Code pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 516. The officers’ reasonable interpretation of the Vehicle Code is a proper basis for detention, and is supported by substantial evidence. (Heien, supra, 574 U.S. 54; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 441.)

MOOR, J.

We Concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.