When a parolee's vehicle was searched without a warrant for a search, can the parolee deny that he was driving the vehicle?

Defendant argues the officers had no basis for assuming he exercised control over the vehicle, and that "proximity to a vehicle, without more," is insufficient to give rise to an inference of ownership or control over the vehicle. Again, defendant ignores the totality of the evidence in the record. Only defendant and his companions were near the vehicle, the vehicle appeared to have been parked only temporarily, and defendant was at the driver's door when the officer's arrived. On these facts, there was reasonable suspicion that defendant exercised at least joint control over the car and its contents. And contrary to defendant's suggestion, the officers were not required to ask if the vehicle was owned by defendant prior to searching it. (People v. Baker, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 ["There is no obligation to ask whether the purse belonged to the parolee before searching it"].) Accordingly, the officers were permitted to search the vehicle without a warrant.

The judgment is affirmed.