Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Boissard

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 15, 1992No. E008980PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, J.

Following the denial of his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion, defendant pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. He appeals, contending the trial court erroneously denied the suppression motion because (1) the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, (2) the officers’ search of the automobile was not incidental to his arrest, and (3) the officers’ arrest of him for a violation of Penal Code section 148.9 was a pretext to search the automobile. We affirm.

Procedural and Factual Background

During the…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. United States v. Winston Bryant McConneyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. People v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
  3. People v. CastilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  4. (PS) Vicari v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  5. People v. BrownSuperior Court of Guam · 2023

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API