Defendant’s husband was the subject

Defendant’s husband was the subject

Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County (California), which entered on a jury verdict convicting her of possession of methamphetamine for sale in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11378 and misdemeanor possession of marijuana, a violation of Calif. Health & Safety Code § 11357(b).

Defendant’s husband was the subject of a drug investigation and defendant was detained by police while in a vehicle registered to her husband in the driveway of his business premises. Police found methamphetamines, marijuana, and a large amount of cash in her purse. At trial, after denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, the court ruled that appellant had voluntarily consented to the search of her purse and that her detention had been proper. ADA attorney Orange County Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On appeal, the court reviewed the denial of the motion to suppress using a standard of reasonableness under U.S. Const. amend. IV. The court noted that there were outstanding search warrants for defendant’s home and for her husband’s business at the time of her detention, and that she appeared to have a connection with the activities being conducted inside the business. She appeared at the business twice in one morning, each time going to the office area of the business. The court ruled that the reasonable inferences drawn from the array of facts in the case justified the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.

The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying defendant’s motion to suppress, finding that the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the array of facts presented justified the defendant’s detention and the subsequent seizure of contraband from her purse.

Cross-appeals were taken from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which granted summary adjudication to plaintiff adjacent landowners on a challenge to defendant county’s determination that a mining company had vested rights under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 2710 et seq.). The trial court ruled against the adjacent landowners’ claims seeking enforcement of SMARA.

The county made the vested rights determination under Pub. Resources Code, § 2776, without notice and without a hearing. The court held that the county’s determination violated the procedural due process requirements under U.S. Const., 5th Amend., and Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, subd. (a), of reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. The determination was adjudicative, not ministerial, because it encompassed factual issues that had to be resolved through the adjudicative exercise of judgment. Because the surface mining operation implicated the diminishing asset doctrine, the mining company had to show that the area it desired to excavate was clearly intended to be excavated at the time the permit requirement went into effect. The determination implicated significant or substantial deprivations of the adjacent landowners’ property rights, and their settlement of claims against the mining company did not waive due process protections. The adjacent landowners were not entitled to a writ of mandate under Pub. Resources Code, § 2716, to enforce SMARA because there was no clear violation. Private enforcement actions were not authorized by Pub. Resources Code, § 2774.1, subd. (g).

The court affirmed the judgment as modified to vacate certain remand conditions and to impose conditions requiring the mining company to either prove its claim of vested rights in a public adjudicatory hearing or obtain a permit to conduct surface mining based on a public adjudicatory hearing.