P. v. Ramirez
Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Fernando Gonzalez Ramirez was convicted by jury trial of possession of methamphetamine and transportation of methamphetamine. On appeal, he contends the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress because (1) exigent circumstances did not justify the officers warrantless, nonconsensual patdown search of defendant because the officer had no duty to impound the vehicle and no duty to transport its occupants, (2) the officer failed to inform defendant he had the right to refuse a ride in the patrol vehicle and (3) even if the patdown search was permissible, the officer exceeded the permissible scope by lifting defendants pant leg and looking inside his boot. Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Ramirez