P. v. Lira
A Sheriff's deputy saw the respondent, Ernest Lira, carrying a "bright colored" women's purse. Lira also had a knapsack on his back. The trial court opined that "a man with a purse is not unusual in Los Angeles." Perhaps. But, when the contents of the purse are poured into the knapsack and the purse discarded, the interest of an observant Sheriff's deputy is properly and lawfully aroused. As we shall explain, the initial contact between the deputy and Lira was a "consensual encounter," not a detention, and the facts presented here "permit -- even demand -- an investigation: the public rightfully expects a police officer to inquire into such circumstances 'in the proper discharge of the officer's duties.' [Citation.]" (In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 894, superseded by statute on another issue.)
Lira was charged with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)),[1] with an alleged prior "strike" conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667), and prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court granted Lira's motion to suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) and dismissed the case (§ 1385, subd. (a)). The People appeal. (§ 1238, subd. (a)(7).) We reverse.
Comments on P. v. Lira