California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Stafford, H036350 (Cal. App. 2012):
"When, as here, a magistrate rules on a motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 raised at the preliminary examination, he or she sits as the finder of fact with the power to judge credibility, resolve conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw inferences." (People v. Shafrir (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1244 (Shafrir).) " ' "An appellate court's review of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress is governed by
Page 10
well-settled principles. [Citations.] [] In ruling on such a motion, the trial court (1) finds the historical facts, (2) selects the applicable rule of law, and (3) applies the latter to the former to determine whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated. [Citations.]" ' " (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 255.) "Accordingly, 'we review the trial court's findings of historical fact under the deferential substantial evidence standard, but decide the ultimate constitutional question independently. [Citations.]' [Citation.] We must accept factual inferences in favor of the trial court's ruling. [Citation.] If there is conflicting testimony, we must accept the trial court's resolution of disputed facts and inferences, its evaluations of credibility, and the version of events most favorable to the People, to the extent the record supports them. [Citations.]" (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 342.) "In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment. [Citations.]" (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362; see also Shafrir, supra, at p. 1245.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.