By Gwynneth Redemann
WOODLAND, CA- Judge David Rosenberg here in Yolo County Superior Court last week denied a motion by the defense to suppress DNA evidence collected from a cup used by Lot Guerra during an interview at the Yolo County Sheriffs Office because, the judge said, Guerra did not have an expectation of privacy.
Lot Guerra, charged with multiple felonies including burglary, assault with intent to commit rape, and sexual battery, was transferred from Los Angeles to Yolo County on Aug 28.
According to testimony from Yolo County Detective Randall Krantz, Guerra arrived by car at the Yolo County Sheriffs Office, where he was offered some water after the six-hour car ride.
Guerra drank many cups of water during the interview. At the end of the interview, Detective Krantz booked the cups into evidence because the cups contained DNA evidence.
Private Defense Attorney Steve Whitworth asked Detective Krantz whether he was the officer that Mirandized his client Guerra, and Krantz said yes.
Whitworth continued, asking if in that Mirandizing, is there any conversation about DNA or abandonment of items that may have DNA on them? And Detective Krantz replied, No, there is not.
Whitworth followed up by asking if he ever informed Guerra that anything left behind in the room could be used against him. Again, Detective Krantz responded with a no.
Whitworth proceeded to ask about the details of the trip from Los Angeles to Yolo County, but Detective Krantz knew little about the trip because he was not the detective who was there.
The prosecution, led by Stephanie Allen and supervised by Deputy District Attorney David Robbins, called Corporal Ryan Bowler, another detective, in this case, to testify.
Allen asked Corporal Bowler about the details of the trip from LA to Yolo County, and Bowler said they had stopped twice during the six-hour drive. Bowler had provided Guerra with a meal from McDonalds that came with a medium drink. Other than this meal, Guerra was not provided any other food or drink.
According to Bowler, the group drove directly to the Yolo County Sheriffs Office and Guerra was offered a chance to use the restroom and drink water provided by the officers before the interview.
In the video recording of the interview provided by the prosecution, Guerra is seen drinking multiple cups of water. He is later escorted by a female police officer out of the room, while the cups are left behind on the table.
During the cross-examination, Defense Attorney Whitworth asked whether Bowler had told defendant Guerra that he could take the cups as his property. Bowler indicated that he had not told Guerra this information.
Whitworth then asked why [Bowler] provided Guerra a meal during their travels and if any other drinks had been provided to Guerra during the car ride.
Judge Rosenberg interjected, seemingly annoyed with the length of this motion hearing, stating, Because people get hungry. Next question?
Whitworth continued, asking Bowler youve been trained that if you deny a person food or drink or to use the bathroom [while in custody] that that could be coercive, correct?
The prosecution objected to this question, stating that it is clear that all procedures were followed and that she doesnt see how this is relevant to the cups. The question was sustained by Judge Rosenberg.
Whitworth continued, Did you offer Guerra any other drinks besides the drink that came with the meal?
Bowler stated, No.
And so for 6 hours, the only drink that you are aware of that he had, including the interview time, was the soda he drank with his meal, asked Whitworth.
It was eventually concluded that that was in fact the only drink that Guerra had between 8 a.m. and the time of the interview.
In the final comments of the motion, Whitworth stated, I dont think law enforcement can place citizens in a position where they take them, deprive them of food and drink, and then [later] provide them with food and drink and then use that as a weapon to pierce the Fourth Amendment or as evidence against them.
Judge Rosenberg stated, Its an issue I dont see that often. However, in viewing what Ive seen in the video and carefully reading the briefs submitted by counsel, in this particular case, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the used water cups that he drank from while he was in custodial interrogation.
The motion to suppress is denied.
This case will reconvene for a settlement conference on Dec. 6 in Yolo County.
Go here to read the rest: