Tag Archives: Standard of review

Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000749

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion in denying mental health diversion by basing its denial on findings not supported by substantial evidence and by exercising its discretion in a manner inconsistent with the principles and purpose of the statute.

(Gary’s note: The conclusion that the court abused its discretion relied extensively on facts reviewed by the Court of Appeal. These summaries are designed more to recite the various principles than to ferret out exactly how the principles achieved the result in the particular case. Sometimes it is obvious, but many times the outcome is very fact-dependent. Since these unpublished opinions cannot be cited as authority, it serves little purpose to recite the extensive details that led to the result in a particular case.)

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s order denying mental health diversion for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it makes an arbitrary or capricious decision by applying the wrong legal standard, or bases its decision on express or implied factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 135

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1080

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 448

Second Holding:

Mental health diversion under section 1001.36 requires the trial court to find the defendant both eligible for diversion and suitable for the program. A defendant is eligible for mental health diversion if both of the following criteria are met: (1) defendant presents evidence he or she has been diagnosed with a mental disorder by a qualified mental health expert, identified in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMD), within the last five years and (2) defendant’s mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the charged offense.

A court may consider any relevant and credible evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports, preliminary hearing transcripts, witness statements, statements by the defendant’s mental health treatment provider, medical records, records or reports by qualified medical experts, or evidence that the defendant displayed symptoms consistent with the relevant mental disorder at or near the time of the offense.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b)

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 891

Third Holding:

As to suitability, each of the following criteria must be met: (1) in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant’s symptoms of the mental disorder causing, contributing to, or motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment; (2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives their right to a speedy trial; (3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment as a condition of diversion; and (4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in section 1170.18, if treated in the community.

In determining whether the defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, the court may consider the defendant’s treatment plan, the defendant’s violence and criminal history, the current charged offense, and any other factors that the court deems appropriate.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(c)

Fourth Holding:

Even where defendants make a prima facie showing that they meet all the express statutory requirements, the court may still exercise its discretion to deny diversion. This residual discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised consistent with the principles and purpose of the governing law.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892

People v. Gerson (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1079

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 134-135

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891 [court’s discretion must be informed by legal principles and purpose of statute]

People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977, superseded by statute on other grounds as indicated in People v. Lynall (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108 [all exercises of legal discretion must be grounded in reasoned judgment and guided by legal principles and policies appropriate to the particular matter at issue]

Fifth Holding:

The stated purpose of mental health diversion is to keep people with mental disorders from entering and reentering the criminal justice system while protecting public safety, to give counties discretion in developing and implementing diversion across a continuum of care settings, and to provide mental health rehabilitative services. That purpose includes a strong legislative preference for treatment of mental health disorders because of the benefits of such treatment to both the offending individual and the community.

A trial court’s denial of mental health diversion using its residual discretion should be limited to those situations where the purposes of the statute would not be achieved. Where the court chooses to exercise this residual discretion to deny diversion, its statement of reasons should reflect consideration of the underlying purposes of the statute and explain why diversion would not meet those goals.

Authority:

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 691

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 892-893

Vaughn v. Superior Court (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 124, 138

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 891-892

Lacour v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 391, 401

Discretion, Due process, Duty of the court, Standard of review

Case 000745

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court abused its discretion and violated his right to due process when it denied a continuance to investigate and file a motion for a new trial after granting his motion to represent himself.

First Holding:

We review a trial court’s decision granting or denying a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Absent a showing of an abuse of discretion and prejudice, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1118

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 450

Second Holding:

A trial court’s decision that is deemed an abuse of discretion has been described as a decision that exceeds the bounds of reason or as one that is arbitrary, capricious, patently absurd, or even whimsical. A court’s discretion, however, is not a whimsical, uncontrolled power. T

he scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the legal principles governing the subject of the action. The court’s proper exercise of its discretion, therefore, requires knowledge and consideration of the legal principles essential to an informed, intelligent and just decision.

Where a ruling transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law defining the scope of discretion, the court abuses its discretion.

Authority:

People v. Seigler (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 596, 609

People v. Jacobs (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 728, 737

City of Sacramento v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297

People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 165

Third Holding:

In deciding whether to grant a continuance, trial courts may not exercise their discretion in such a manner as to deprive the defendant or defendant’s counsel of a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

That counsel for a defendant has a right to reasonable opportunity to prepare for a trial is as fundamental as is the right to counsel. The opportunity to prepare is no less fundamental when a defendant elects to proceed pro se.

While it is true that a defendant, who chooses to conduct his defense in pro. per. does so subject to the disabilities normally attendant upon the status as a prisoner, a pro se defendant must be given a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense.

The denial of a continuance after a trial court grants a defendant’s request for self-representation could deprive a defendant of the opportunity to prepare a defense. To deny him that opportunity would be to render his right to appear in propria persona an empty formality, and in effect deny him the right to counsel.

Therefore, when a trial court grants a defendant’s request to proceed pro se, it has been held an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny a request for a reasonable continuance to allow the in propria persona defendant to prepare a defense.

Authority:

People v. Sakarias (2000) 22 Cal.4th 596, 646

People v. Maddox (1967) 67 Cal.2d 647, 652, 653-655

People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 324

People v. Wilkins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 299, 304-305

People v. Hill (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 744, 756, 757

Fourth Holding:

Courts have made an exception only where the record demonstrates the trial court expressly conditioned the granting of an untimely Faretta motion on the defendant’s express waiver of a continuance.

Authority:

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806

People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1038 [court warned the defendant that a request for a continuance would be a basis for denying Faretta motion, and the defendant accepted pro se status on the understanding that no additional time would be granted]

People v. Clark (1992) 3 Cal.4th 41, 110 [court granted Faretta motion only after the defendant “expressly represented he was able to proceed without a continuance], overruled on other grounds in People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th 393, 462

People v. Rudd (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 620, 626 [Faretta motion granted only after the defendant expressly stated he would be able to proceed without a continuance]

Fifth Holding:

The denial of a continuance may be so arbitrary as to deny due process. There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process. Instead, the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.

Authority:

People v. Beames (2007) 40 Cal.4th 907, 921

Sixth Holding:

The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a new trial motion, and its decision will be disturbed only for clear abuse of that discretion. Such an abuse of discretion occurs when the court bases its decision on an incorrect legal standard.

Authority:

People v. Iraheta (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 611, 619

Seventh Holding:

To be sure, the text of section 1181 expressly limits the grant of a motion for new trial to the nine grounds enumerated in the statute. And ineffectiveness of trial counsel is not one of them.

Trial courts, however, have a duty to ensure that a trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused. That includes the right to effective counsel.

The Legislature has no authority to limit by statute a court’s constitutional obligation to ensure that a defendant is accorded due process. Therefore, our Supreme Court has stated that section 1181 should not be read to limit the constitutional duty of trial courts to ensure that defendants be accorded due process of law.

In appropriate circumstances, the trial court should consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion for new trial, because justice is expedited when the issue of counsel’s effectiveness can be resolved promptly at the trial level.

Authority:

People v. Fosselman (1983) 33 Cal.3d 572, 582

People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522, 630

People v. Watts (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 102, 117

Eighth Holding:

We take issue with the trial court’s determination that the defendant could raise the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and late discovered evidence on appeal. Unless the record on appeal includes an explanation as to why trial counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, or unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, a claim on appeal that trial counsel was ineffective is at risk of being rejected.

Under the circumstances in this case, the trial court abused its discretion and deprived the defendant of his right to due process. We remand the matter and direct the trial court to grant the defendant a reasonable continuance to investigate and file a motion for new trial.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 [claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are often more appropriately litigated in a habeas corpus proceeding]

Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000741

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in not conducting a full resentencing on the defendant’s petition for recall under section 1172.75. Remanded for full resentencing.

First Holding:

When a defendant raises both statutory and constitutional bases for their appeal, we do not reach the constitutional grounds if the case can be resolved on statutory grounds. When a defendant appeals the denial of a Marsden motion, the core inquiry is whether the trial court’s ruling violated the defendant’s constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

Swart Enterprises, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 497, 513 [a reviewing court should consider a constitutional question only where essential to the disposition of a case]

People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, 123

People v. Smith (1993) 6 Cal.4th 684, 696

Second Holding:

On the other hand, the scope of a trial court’s application of section 1172.75 is a question of statutory interpretation, which is subject to our de novo review. If that review resolves the appeal, it is dispositive.

Authority:

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1281–1282

Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino (1995) 11 Cal.4th 220, 230–231 [finding that where statutory and constitutional claims are at issue and resolution of the statutory ground is adequate to resolve the matter, doing so is dispositive]

Third Holding:

The parties disagree about whether defendant forfeited his argument that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75. In the interests of judicial economy, to forestall an ineffective assistance of counsel habeas petition, and to avoid the constitutional issues raised by defendant regarding the performance of his trial counsel, we decline to enforce any forfeiture under the circumstances of this case.

Authority:

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 400

Fourth Holding:

In general, we review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found where the court relies upon circumstances that are not relevant to the decision or that otherwise constitute an improper basis for decision.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

Fifth Holding:

Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court. A court that is unaware of the scope of its discretionary powers can no more exercise that informed discretion than one whose sentence is or may have been based on misinformation regarding a material aspect of a defendant’s record. In such circumstances, we have held that the appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Sixth Holding:

Where an issue on appeal requires that we determine the meaning of a statute, we review the trial court’s decision de novo. In any case involving statutory interpretation, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We begin by examining the statute’s words, giving them a plain and commonsense meaning. When the language of a statute is clear, we need go no further.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 312, 323

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1421

People v. Blackburn (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1113, 1123 [If no ambiguity appears in the statutory language, we presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls]

Seventh Holding:

Section 1172.75 makes any sentence enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to 667.5(b) legally invalid unless it was imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the court determines (through the process set forth in the statute) that the defendant’s sentence includes an invalid enhancement, it is required to recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. An eligible defendant under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3 [Where section 1172.75 applies, it requires full resentencing, not simply striking the now-invalidated priors]

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]

Duty of counsel, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000740

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel.

First Holding:

A defendant in a criminal case possesses two constitutional rights with respect to representation that are mutually exclusive. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant a right to counsel but also allows him to waive this right and to represent himself without counsel.

Authority:

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 545

Second Holding:

In any case in which a Faretta request for self-representation has been made, the court must evaluate two countervailing considerations: on one hand, the defendant’s absolute right to counsel, which must be assiduously protected; on the other hand, the defendant’s unqualified constitutional right to discharge counsel if he pleases and represent himself.

The right to representation by counsel persists until a defendant affirmatively waives it, and courts indulge every reasonable inference against such waiver.

The waiver of counsel must be knowing and voluntary—that is, the defendant must actually understand the significance and consequences of the decision, and the decision must be uncoerced. The purpose of the knowing and voluntary inquiry is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.

Authority:

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 545

People v. Marshall (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1, 20 [Courts must indulge every reasonable inference against waiver of the right to counsel]

Third Holding:

When confronted with a request for self-representation, a trial court must make the defendant aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.

Nevertheless, no particular form of words is required in admonishing a defendant who seeks to forgo the right to counsel and engage in self-representation. The test of a valid waiver of counsel is not whether specific warnings or advisements were given but whether the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation, including the risks and complexities of the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Dent (2003) 30 Cal.4th 213, 217–218

Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806,. 835

People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 140

Fourth Holding:

On appeal, a reviewing court independently examines the entire record to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently invoked his right to self-representation. The defendant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the waiver was invalid.

Authority:

People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 453

People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549

Fifth Holding:

In Jackio, the court held that trial courts are required to advise a defendant desiring to represent himself at trial of the maximum punishment that could be imposed if the defendant is found guilty of the crimes, with enhancements, alleged at the time the defendant moves to represent himself.

In Bush, the court distinguished Jackio and held that, while the better practice would be to inform the accused, on the record, of the maximum sentence, including any maximum monetary fine that could be imposed on a conviction, we have not found any case specifically concluding that an advisement on this point is a constitutional minimum in every case.

Authority:

People v. Jackio (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 445, 454

People v. Bush (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 457, 473

Sixth Holding:

It is not entirely clear whether the invalid waiver is structural error that is reversible per se or whether the error should be reviewed for prejudice under the standard of Chapman, under which error is reversible unless harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need not resolve that question because, even if the error was not structural, respondent has not shown the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against appellant was overwhelming. There is certainly a reasonable possibility that, faced with a sentence three times longer than he initially had in mind and with no plausible defense to the charges, appellant would have opted to forgo self-representation. And there is also a reasonable possibility appointed counsel could have negotiated a plea agreement with the prosecution that would have resulted in a sentence less than that appellant received.

Authority:

People v. Burgener (2009) 46 Cal.4th 231, 244 [acknowledging but not resolving split of authority]

People v. Ruffin (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 536, 549

Fourth Amendment

Case 000738

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the denial of the motion to suppress the evidence. A security guard noticed that car in the parking lot had shooting targets and loose ammunition–both legal–in the car, and the car’s trunk was open. No one was inside or near the car, which was locked. The guard called the police. The officer saw what appeared to be a tactical vest in the partly opened trunk. The officer then fully opened the trunk and could then see the butt of a pistol in the vest.

Because the officer could not see the gun and magazines until after he had seized the tactical vest, he had no probable cause to open the trunk further to conduct the search the trunk or of the vest he removed from the trunk.

First Holding:

In reviewing an order on a suppression motion, we rely on the trial court’s express and implied factual findings, provided they are supported by substantial evidence, to independently determine whether the search was constitutional.

Thus, while we ultimately exercise our independent judgment to determine the constitutional propriety of a search or seizure, we do so within the context of historical facts determined by the trial court construed in the light most favorable to the court’s order. It is the trial court’s role to evaluate witness credibility, resolve conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence, and draw factual inferences.

Authority:

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 860-861

Second Holding:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of private property. A defendant challenging the lawfulness of a warrantless search must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched or the things seized. A successful showing requires the government to respond by identifying an applicable exception to the warrant requirement.

If the government fails to do so, the court must apply an exclusionary rule that forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial and must also preclude the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of the illegal search.

Authority:

People v. Ramirez (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1469

People v. Nishi (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 954, 960

People v. Rogers (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1136, 115

People v. Golden (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 905, 911

Third Holding:

A defendant’s expectation of privacy must be both subjective and objectively reasonable. To meet this second prong of the test, the expectation must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.

Authority:

People v. Nishi (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 954, 960

Byrd v. United States (2018) 584 U.S. 395, 405

Fourth Holding:

The court’s determination that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trunk of his car is supported by substantial evidence. At the time of the search, the doors to his car were locked and the key was in his pocket. These facts are highly relevant to our inquiry because one of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others, and one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude.

Accordingly, one who owns and possesses a car, like one who owns and possesses a house, almost always has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. The facts indicate that the defendant took precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy.

Authority:

Byrd v. United States (2018) 584 U.S. 395, 405

Fifth Holding:

It does not violate the Fourth Amendment for an officer to make a warrantless seizure of an incriminating object in plain view if (1) the officer was lawfully in a place where the object could be viewed; (2) the officer had a lawful right of access to the seized item; and (3) the item’s evidentiary value was immediately apparent. This third element requires that there be probable cause to believe that the item in question is evidence of a crime or contraband before it was seized.

Authority:

People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 489

People v. Stokes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 715, 719

Sixth Holding:

Under the substantial evidence standard of review, we defer to a trial court’s credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Generally, this is evidence that, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.

Under this standard, we may reject testimony accepted as credible by the trial court only if it is wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds or unbelievable per se such that no reasonable person could believe the testimony Credibility findings that fail to survive this scrutiny are rare indeed. There must exist either a physical impossibility that they are true, or the statements falsity must be apparent without resorting to inferences or deductions.

This case presents one of these rare occurrences. (The opinion then details the problems it perceived with trial courts conclusions drawn from the officer’s testimony.)

Authority:

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 860-861

People v. Conner (1983) 34 Cal.3d 141, 149

In re S.A. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1149

DiQuisto v. County of Santa Clara (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 236, 261

Seventh Holding:

Under the plain view doctrine, probable cause that an item of interest to law enforcement is incriminating must exist before the object is seized. The trial court’s logic, by contrast, suggests that this standard can be met by a mere hunch that happens to pan out. That is not how the Fourth Amendment works.

Authority:

People v. Stokes (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 715, 719

People v. Pitts (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 881, 889 [A hunch may provide the basis for solid police work. A hunch, however, is not a substitute for the necessary specific, articulable facts required to justify a Fourth Amendment intrusion]

Eighth Holding:

A law enforcement officer often performs functions that are totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute. As these so-called community caretaking functions relate to vehicles, they include impounding them if they pose threats to public safety—for example, because they are disabled, parked illegally, or blocking traffic or a sidewalk—or stand at risk of theft or vandalism.

When vehicles are impounded, that is, seized, local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and inventorying the automobiles’ contents. These inventory searches are “a well-defined exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

Accordingly, under what is sometimes referred to as the vehicle community caretaking exception, the government may introduce evidence obtained from an inventory search of a lawfully impounded vehicle.

But controlling precedent recognizes the vehicle community caretaking exception applies only in the context of impound procedures, which undisputedly were not used here. No published California case has applied the concept of community caretaking outside the context of a vehicle inventory.

Even assuming that the community caretaking function might in some circumstances permit a warrantless search for suspected firearms in the unsecured trunk of an unoccupied car in a public place, the search here was unreasonable because sheriff’s deputies made no attempt to first locate the driver of the vehicle before opening the trunk

Authority:

Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) 413 U.S. 433, 441

People v. Vodak (1980) 105 Cal.App.3rd 1014

People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853, 867

People v. Ovieda (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1034, 1048, 1053