Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Justices Spar Over Warrantless Search of Open Trunk
Majority Says Judge Wrongly Credited Officer’s Testimony That He Saw Gun in Plain View Despite Later Clarifications; Dissent Argues No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held yesterday that the warrantless search of a parked vehicle, which contained a shooting target and loose high-powered rifle ammunition visible in the back seat as well as a tactical vest in plain view through the partially-open lid to the rear compartment, was violative of the Fourth Amendment, drawing dissent over the circumstances under which a party can be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The unpublished decision, authored by Justice William Dato and joined in by Justice Julia C. Kelety, reverses the judgment of conviction entered after a defendant pled guilty following the denial of his suppression motion.
Rejecting the view that the owner of the vehicle lacked standing to contest the warrantless search and seizure of the contents of the trunk, which was found to contain an unsecured handgun and an automatic rifle, because he left the rear compartment open, the majority opined:
“When considered in this context, [the defendant’s] decision to reverse park his car into a spot that was away from other cars, had no walkway behind it, and was next to a row of plants that abutted the clinic building are actions consistent with an attempt to protect the privacy of his trunk.”
As to whether the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement applied, Dato took issue with the trial judge’s credibility finding as to an officer’s testimony that he observed the butt of a handgun sticking out of the tactical vest through the partially ajar trunk before fully opening the compartment.
Credibility Finding
Noting that the court may only reject testimony accepted as credible by a trial judge if it is such that no reasonable person would believe it, he wrote:
“This case presents one of these rare occurrences. [The officer] testified once…that he saw a gun…before he opened the trunk. Every other time the issue came up, however, he clarified that he did not recall seeing the handgun in the vest until after he opened the trunk….On this record, we cannot accept the trial court’s finding that a snippet of testimony [the officer] walked back several times was credible.”
Acting Presiding Justice Terry B. O’Rourke dissented, arguing that “I cannot agree with the majority’s approach, which elects to improperly reject the court’s reasoned and carefully articulated credibility findings” and asserting that the question of whether the gun was visible in plain sight was irrelevant. He remarked:
“Sheriff’s deputies called to a public medical facility parking lot came upon Lewis’s unoccupied, locked vehicle with a partially open trunk lid. Shooting targets, high-powered assault rifle ammunition, a knife and other shooting paraphernalia were in plain view on the front passenger seat. One deputy peered into the trunk and saw a tactical vest akin to those worn by police. Was the deputy’s decision to search the open trunk without first obtaining a warrant reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? In my view, the obvious answer is yes.”
Firearm Paraphernalia
Appealing his conviction was Cameron Hunter Lewis, who left his car in the parking lot of a Temecula medical center in August 2022. A security guard noticed shooting targets and loose rifle ammunition in the passenger compartment and called the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
Deputy Gregory Eastwood responded to the call with two others. He looked inside the ajar trunk without moving the lid, observed a tactical vest like those worn by police officers, and opened the compartment.
After Eastwood retrieved a handgun and four high-capacity rifle magazines from the pockets of the vest, a full search of the car was conducted, based on the officer’s conclusion that the firearm had been unlawfully stored, and another deputy discovered a loaded assault rifle inside a bag in the trunk.
The officers confirmed that Lewis was the registered owner of the car and arrested him inside an examination room. He pled guilty to, among other charges, possession of an assault weapon and carrying a concealed firearm inside a vehicle in May 2024 after retired Riverside Superior Court Judge Frederick Paul Dickerson III, sitting by assignment, denied his motion to suppress.
Dickerson acknowledged that the officer “admitted that he made a couple of different inconsistent statements” but said “people can get confused” when “[y]ou’ve got one attorney asking you questions, then another.” Saying that “[t]he trier of fact has to decide which statement, if any, to believe,” he concluded:
“I believe his initial statement [that]….[h]e looked in, he saw the vest, he saw what he believed to be magazines and what appeared to be the butt of a gun. And that’s corroborated. Because when he takes out the vest, it has a gun in the vest, and there are magazines.”
Plain View
Reasoning that the validity of the search and seizure in question depends on whether Eastwood was able to observe the firearm in plain view before he pulled the tactical vest out of the trunk, Dato noted that a deputy may make a warrantless seizure of an incriminating object if the item’s evidentiary value is immediately apparent and the officer is lawfully in the area.
Looking to the testimony at the suppression hearing, he commented:
“[The deputy] admitted [that his having exclaimed, ‘Oh boy!’ when he pulled the firearm from the vest] indicated surprise at the discovery of the gun….Indeed, the testimony that Eastwood did not see the gun in the partially open trunk was so clear that…prosecutors…accepted it as true.”
The jurist continued:
“We are unpersuaded to read the record differently based on the trial judge’s theories that Eastwood’s clarifications were the result of confusion….Nothing in the deputy’s testimony indicates that he failed to understand the questions he was being asked….And so while it is true…that as the trier of fact he was to resolve evidentiary conflicts…, there was no…contradiction to reconcile. Rather, the deputy’s testimony about the gun as repeatedly clarified and understood by all the advocates in the courtroom…was consistent, not in conflict, with the other evidence.”
Rejecting the assertion that the community caretaking exception might offer a legal avenue for the search, he pointed out that the rule generally “applies only in the context of impound procedures” but said:
“[W[e can imagine hypothetical situations where a warrantless entry into the trunk of an unoccupied car…would be reasonable under this exception, such as where police credibly believe it contains a live explosive device. But reasonableness was lacking for the warrantless search of Lewis’s trunk because there were obvious and plainly less intrusive methods….The simplest solution…would have been for one of the three on-scene deputies to watch the car while the others attempted to locate Lewis inside the clinic so that he could be asked to secure the trunk.”
O’Rourke’s View
Saying that “Lewis had no expectation of privacy in the open trunk of his car parked in a public lot” and that “the search was justified by the automobile or exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement,” O’Rourke asserted:
“Reviewing courts may affirm a suppression ruling if it is correct on any theory, even if the lower court’s reasoning was incorrect….I cannot agree with the majority’s approach, which elects to improperly reject the court’s reasoned and carefully articulated credibility findings. Thus, I would affirm the order denying Lewis’s motion to suppress on the grounds stated above.”
Noting U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence providing that individuals have a reduced expectation of privacy with respect to vehicles, he wrote:
“That Lewis left his car unattended in a public parking lot, with the trunk lid unlocked and ajar, rendered any expectation of privacy he may have had in the truck area objectively unreasonable. The majority points out that Lewis [took] ‘actions consistent with an attempt to protect the privacy of his trunk.’…But this shows only that Lewis maintained a subjective expectation of privacy; it does not demonstrate such an expectation is objectively reasonable.”
Reasoning that, “[f]or this reason alone, the order denying Lewis’s suppression motion should be affirmed,” he added that “I would in any event hold the officer’s search of the trunk under these circumstances…did not violate the Fourth Amendment” because an officer may search a vehicle based on probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found inside.” He opined:
“Officers saw that Lewis’s vehicle contained shooting paraphernalia,…loose high-powered rifle ammunition and a knife. One officer spotted a tactical vest through the gap of the partially opened trunk. While in isolation, these items may not have been unlawful to possess, the facts in my view ‘would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe…’ that the vehicle’s trunk contained a concealed weapon, a violation of [the] Penal Code.”
The case is People v. Lewis, D087168.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company