P. v. Dominguez
Filed 7/3/12 P. v. Dominguez CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ALICIA
DOMINGUEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
F062645
(Super. Ct. No. VCF231205)
THE COURT
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of
County. Darryl B. Ferguson, Judge.
Francine
R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and
Rebecca Whitfield, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
An officer was dispatched to a supermarket
parking lot where she met with a mother and daughter who reported an assault by
three other women. The officer watched a
surveillance video of a portion of the assault.
The officer obtained an address for a suspect, Alicia Dominguez, and
went to her home. While talking to two
men who answered the door, the officer recognized Dominguez by her clothes,
which were the same ones as in the surveillance video. The officer asked Dominguez several times to
step outside. When she did not, the
officer entered her home and arrested her without a warrant. Once outside her home, Dominguez made
incriminating statements.
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1] After the court denied her motion to suppress, she pled no contest to
one count of assault likely to produce great bodily injury. On appeal, she challenges the court’s denial
of her motion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2010, a felony information
charged Dominguez with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd.
(a)(1))
title="">[2] and alleged that the act resulted in great
bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd.
(a).) Following the denial of her motion
to suppress, she pled no contest to assault likely to produce great bodily
injury. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) On May 18, 2011, the court granted formal
probation on condition of service of 180 days in jail and dismissed the great
bodily injury allegation.
DISCUSSION
Dominguez argues that a police officer’s
entry into her home to arrest her without a warrant and without her consent
violated her Fourth Amendment right
against an unreasonable search and seizure. The Attorney General argues that
since the arrest was supported by probable cause the warrantless arrest inside
her home does not require the suppression of her postarrest statements outside
her home. We agree with the Attorney
General. (See, e.g.,
The evidence that Dominguez characterizes as
improper arose from statements she made outside her home after her
Esparza had been dispatched to a physical altercation in front of a supermarket
where a woman told her that three other women had attacked her and her
daughter. The mother told Esparza that
she was leaving the store when one female approached her from behind and shoved
her and her daughter, after which two other females ran up and assaulted
them. Esparza then viewed the
surveillance video and testified that the female who pushed the mother was
wearing “a black jacket, like hood-type jacket with a dark reddish burgundyish
color shirt and black pants.†The mother
knew where the suspects lived and directed Esparza to a nearby home.
Two men opened the door for Esparza,
who recognized Dominguez inside because she was wearing the same clothes as the
female who shoved the mother in the surveillance video. Esparza testified that she asked Dominguez if
she could come outside and talk.
Dominguez refused, threatened to shut the door, and told Esparza that
she “needed a warrant.†Esparza told
Dominguez she was placing her under arrest, went into her home, and arrested
her.
Afterward, Esparza testified, she
brought Dominguez outside her home and informed her of her Miranda
name="_ftnref4" title="">[3] rights.
Dominguez then told Esparza that the mother and daughter had been
harassing Dominguez and her daughters and that if the mother and daughter kept
it up “they were gonna handle it out on the street.†Dominguez told Esparza that she didn’t “give
a Fuck†and “beat the F†out of the daughter.
Another police officer testified that the daughter had a cut and a
bruise and a large amount of scalp showing from her hair having been pulled
out. Both the mother and daughter
separately identified Dominguez as the woman who attacked them.
The Fourth
Amendment prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual
entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest. (Payton
v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 576 (Payton).) However, where police have probable cause to
arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of statements made
by the defendant outside his or her home, even though the statements are taken
after an arrest made inside the home in violation of Payton. (
As a general rule, where there is probable
cause to arrest, the fact that police illegally enter a home to make a
warrantless arrest neither invalidates the arrest nor requires suppression of
any postarrest statements the defendant makes.
(People v. Watkins (1994) 26
Cal.App.4th 19, 29, citing People v.
Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 568-569.)
That is so here. Since the
postarrest statements Dominguez made were outside her home, the court properly
denied her motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
The
order is affirmed.
Franson, J.
relevant (post).
