Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Motion To Suppress topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officer testifies in motion to suppress over Vargas traffic stop; judge to review video before ruling
Summary
In State v. John Manuel Vargas the state called Officer Ashley Terrazas to testify about a traffic stop and vehicle search; defense counsel challenged probable cause, arguing a single air freshener did not justify the stop and noting admitted video lacks audio; the judge will review the footage and issue a ruling.
At a motion to suppress hearing in State v. John Manuel Vargas, Officer Ashley Terrazas testified that she observed a gray Chrysler commit multiple traffic violations and, after approaching the vehicle, smelled marijuana and directed a search that recovered methamphetamine, marijuana and Xanax, the officer said.
Officer Terrazas described seeing the vehicle exit a private lot and "turn into the 2nd lane" rather than the lane closest to the property, failing to stop when emerging from private property, and having an item hanging from the rearview mirror that she said violated the window‑restriction statute. She said she smelled marijuana when she approached during the stop and, with assistance from Detective Encina, performed a search that yielded controlled substances. The state offered a dash/body‑cam recording as State's Exhibit 1; the court admitted the video for purposes of the hearing.
Defense counsel Marissa Givens cross‑examined the officer, noting the admitted video has no audio and — as recorded — does not show the claimed pre‑video violations. Givens argued on the record that "one single air freshener is not an obstructed view" and challenged whether the officer actually told the defendant all of the traffic violations at the scene. Defense counsel asked the court to suppress evidence seized during the stop on the ground that the initial stop lacked sufficient probable cause.
The prosecutor argued the officer observed three separate traffic violations and that the later odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile‑exception doctrine. The state stressed that the officer's training and observations support the stop and subsequent search.
The judge said she would review the admitted video and make a ruling later in the afternoon; both parties were asked to be present for that ruling.
What happens next: The court's written ruling will state whether the stop and search were lawful and whether the seized evidence will be admitted at trial. The transcript records that the state admitted State's Exhibit 1 for purposes of the hearing and that the judge reserved decision after hearing oral argument.
