In this Orange County case, defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing error in denying his motion to suppress the search of his vehicle. The Court of Appeals found no error in denying the motion to suppress.

In October of 2020, a sheriff’s deputy noticed a vehicle with an inoperable tag light at a gas station; after running the license plate, the deputy determined the registered owner had a suspended license. It was unclear to the deputy who was operating the vehicle. After the deputy initiated a traffic stop, defendant’s daughter turned out to be driving the vehicle, and she admitted to the sheriff’s deputies that she did not have a license. Defendant was in the front seat and deputies observed that he appeared intoxicated. The deputies prepared a citation for the driver of the vehicle and asked the occupants to step out while a K-9 sniffed the vehicle. The K-9 alerted on the passenger side, and defendant admitted that his friend had brought marijuana into his vehicle two days ago, but that it had been thrown out. After a search of the vehicle no narcotics were found, but a gun was found in the passenger side glovebox. At trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the search, and the trial court denied this motion after a hearing. Defendant entered an Alford plea and reserved his right to appeal.

The Court of Appeals first examined defendant’s challenged findings of fact, walking through the seven written findings in turn. The court found competent evidence in the record, primarily from the body-worn cameras of the officers during the traffic stop. Noting that “[t]he trial court was in the best position to resolve any evidentiary conflict in its factual findings, even if a different conclusion could have been reached,” the court found each finding was supported by competent evidence and binding on appeal. Slip Op. at 8.

Moving to the challenged conclusions of law, the court noted defendant’s challenges raised three primary issues related to the stop: (i) reasonable suspicion for the original stop, (ii) reasonable suspicion to extend the stop, and (iii) the stop was illegally prolonged. Considering (i), the court found reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle based on the inoperable tag light and suspended license of the registered owner, as the deputy did not know who was driving. Taking up (ii), the court explained that before the original purpose for the stop was completed, defendant’s daughter admitted she was driving without a license, which “provided the deputies with additional reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify further delay of the traffic stop.” Id. at 13 (cleaned up). Finally in (iii), the court explained that the K-9 was on the scene from the initial traffic stop, and was deployed while one deputy was still addressing the citation for driving without a license. The court concluded “the use of the K-9 did not unconstitutionally prolong the stop.” Id. at 15.