Filed 7/8/26 P. v. Rivera CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065731
v. (Super. Ct. No. 24WF0681)
JOSE JONATHAN RIVERA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Lance P. Jensen and Larry Yellin, Judges. Affirmed.
Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On July 3, 2025, Jose Rivera pled guilty to transportation of a
controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379,
subd. (a)), possession a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health
and Saf. Code, § 11378), possession of a controlled substance with a firearm
(Health and Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)), and carrying a loaded
unregistered firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(6). The trial
court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on formal supervised
probation, and ordered him to serve 365 days in jail.
We appointed counsel to represent Rivera on appeal. Counsel
filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised
the court he found no arguable issues to assert on Rivera’s behalf. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738.) To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested we consider
(1) whether Rivera established a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
vehicle police searched sufficient to challenge the legality of the search, and
(2) whether the police search was conducted pursuant to a lawful decision to
impound the vehicle and inventory its contents.
Counsel and this court notified Rivera he could file a
supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, this court did not receive a
supplemental brief from him, and the time to file one has passed.
We have independently reviewed the entire record as required
under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we
have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
On May 11, 2021, at approximately 3:13 p.m., a Garden Grove
police officer and his partner stopped a vehicle because of its tinted windows.
Once the driver pulled the vehicle over, she stepped out of the vehicle, closed
2
the door behind her, and walked towards the police officers with a cell phone
in her hand. When an officer noticed there was a passenger, Rivera, in the
vehicle, he asked the driver to get back into the vehicle. The driver told
officers the passenger was her boyfriend. The officers issued commands, and
the driver and Rivera engaged in a five-minute discussion where the officers
asked the driver and Rivera to roll the windows down, but the driver and
Rivera refused to comply. During this time, the officers could not clearly see
what Rivera was doing in the vehicle because the windows were tinted. They
could see him moving around because the windows were not pitch black. At
one point during the discussion, Rivera slightly opened the passenger door
and then closed it. The driver and Rivera ultimately exited the vehicle. The
officers arrested the driver and detained Rivera.
Because the vehicle was parked in a high-crime area, officers
decided to have the vehicle towed. Officers knew the area was prone to thefts
and vehicle thefts, knew of shootings and vehicle thefts that had occurred
there, and had been in the general area responding to suspected criminal
activity over a hundred times. Before the towing, officers searched the vehicle
for inventory purposes. During the search, officers discovered a large amount
of methamphetamine and a scale in the glove box. Officers also found baggies
and packaging in the rear seat area, along with a firearm in the storage
compartment behind the driver’s seat. The gun was operable, loaded, and did
not have a serial number on it. Officers then discovered over 70 Xanax pills in
the center console.
Based on what they uncovered during the search, the officers
believed the driver was distracting them from Rivera hiding contraband in
the vehicle. The officers had observed Rivera moving around the vehicle, and
a majority of the contraband was found within arm’s reach of where he was
3
sitting. Specifically, the gun behind the driver’s seat would have been easier
for Rivera to access than the driver. Additionally, the glove box was directly
in front of Rivera. Based upon these facts, officers decided to arrest Rivera.
During the arrest, officers found over $3,000 on Rivera’s person. The money
was in different denominations, which indicated to officers it was used in
drug sales.
The April 23, 2025, refiled operative information charged Rivera
with transportation of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale (Health
and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a), count 1), possession a controlled substance
for the purpose of sale (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378, count 2), possession of
a controlled substance with a firearm (Health and Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd.
(a), count 3), and carrying a loaded unregistered firearm in public (Pen. Code,
§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(6), count 4).
On July 3, 2025, Rivera pled guilty to the four counts charged
against him and admitted the factors in aggravation. The trial court
sentenced Rivera to 365 days in county jail, suspended imposition of the
sentence, and placed Rivera on probation for two years.
Rivera timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
As indicated above, counsel noted two issues for our
consideration. We address those issues in order.
First, Rivera did not establish a reasonable expectation of privacy
in the vehicle officers searched sufficient to challenge the search’s legality.
“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like other
constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted.” (Alderman v. United
States (1969) 394 U.S. 165, 174.) “The established principle is that
suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be
4
successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by
the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of
damaging evidence. Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no
special standing.” (Id. at pp. 171–172.) The California Supreme Court thus
has held that “[a] passenger in a vehicle may not challenge the seizure of
evidence from the vehicle if the passenger asserts ‘neither a property nor a
possessory interest in the automobile nor an interest in the property seized.’”
(People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 122.) As a passenger in a vehicle in
which he had no possessory interest, Rivera had no expectation of privacy
that would permit him to challenge the legality of the search of that vehicle.
Second, regardless of whether Rivera had a possessory interest in
the vehicle, the police search was conducted pursuant to a lawful decision to
impound the vehicle and inventory its contents. Law enforcement officers
often perform so-called community caretaking functions related to vehicles,
including impounding them if they pose threats to public safety—for
example, because they are at risk of theft or vandalism. (People v. Lee (2019)
40 Cal.App.5th 853, 867.) “‘When vehicles are impounded,’ “that is, seized,
“‘local police departments generally follow a routine practice of securing and
inventorying the automobiles’ contents.’” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th
36, 52.) “These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the
protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody,
[citation]; the protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or
stolen property, [citation]; and the protection of the police from potential
danger, [citation].” (South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 369.)
These inventory searches are “a well-defined exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement.” (People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th
853, 867.) However, “‘an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general
5
rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The policy or practice
governing inventory searches should be designed to produce an inventory.’”
(People v. Torres (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 775, 788.) Here, the officer who
authorized the tow testified he did so because the area where the vehicle was
parked was a high-crime area where he knew other vehicles had been stolen.
There was no evidence the officer had any investigatory motive when he
impounded the vehicle.
Our independent review of the entire record does not show the
existence of an arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 442–443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
DELANEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
SCHWARM, J.*
*Judge of the Orange County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
6