California v. Millan

After a magistrate denied his motion to suppress, and the trial court denied his renewed motion to suppress, Oscar Millan pled guilty to one count of transporting methamphetamine, admitted having suffered four prior drug-related convictions within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370.2(c), and admitted having suffered four prison priors. On appeal, Millan's primary contention was that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Millan argued the trial court should have granted the motion because law enforcement agents conducted a warrantless search of his rental car without probable cause and the State failed to prove that an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applied. Millan also argued the trial court erred in imposing penalty assessments on a drug program charge, and a lab analysis charge, and that the Court of Appeal should reduce the trial court's imposition of a $3,000 restitution fine and a $3,000 parole revocation restitution fine to $300 each in accordance with the trial court's purported intention to impose the minimum possible fines that the court could legally impose. In its initial opinion in this matter, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress because there was substantial evidence in the record that Millan implicitly consented to the search at issue. Furthermore, the Court concluded the trial court did not err in imposing penalty assessments on the drug program charge and the lab analysis charge and that there was no basis for reducing the restitution or parole revocation restitution fines. In the unpublished portions of its opinion, the Court of Appeal restated those conclusions. View "California v. Millan" on Justia Law