6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/01/13 - Jan 13, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/01/13

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 2h 27m 1 speaker 7 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What announcements and technology guidelines are given at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 0:00

All right, the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District is now the session. Preside Justice, the Honorable Mary Green Greenwood, Associate Justice to the Honorable Allison M. Damon, Associate Justice to the Honorable Daniel A. Sonmer.

Ann Timmer 0:17

Morning, please be seated. Welcome to the sixth district court of appeal for oral argument this morning. Uh we have four matters on. Uh there will be no panel change and we do not have an afternoon session. Before we start, I do have a couple of announcements that I do want to make for everyone's benefit. Um both of them have to do with technology. The first is that Uh, the court does permit. Remote appearances um by uh self represented litigants and attorneys. Um and if you are appearing if you are in a case in our uh council, um obviously you can uh with the device in front of you see the person who is appearing remotely. We also can see up here. on the bench. If you were in the audience, you will get the audio.

Ann Timmer 1:05

But you will not get a visual. We don't have a screen here in the courtroom. If you want both experiences, you're welcome to step into the waiting room where we have a live stream and you would be able to see and hear both. We also archive oral argument almost immediately after it's been completed. Um, and there you would be able to both see and hear the argument. Secondly, in terms of technology The justices have access to our laptops up here on the bench. So if you see us looking off to the right, we have the briefs, the record, our own notes, um, and uh we frequently reference them. So uh not to be surprised by that. And with that, I will get connected and then we can start the calendar. Thank you.

Ann Timmer 2:09

First matter on calendar is people versus plaintiff and respondent versus Julio Cesar Chavez, defendant and appellant. If we could have counsel's appearance for appellant first and a confirmation of your time estimate, please.

George Barron 2:25

George Barron's here for a pellet, Julio Chavez. And the time estimate is ten and five.

Ann Timmer 2:31

Right. Thank you, Mr. Barrens. Nice to see you this morning and appearing uh for uh the Attorney General's office this morning. So you're gonna wanna go to the podium because we record.

Ashwin Bott 2:44

Uh good mornings. Good morning, Your Honors. My name is Ashwin Bott. I am a certified law student under the supervision of Attorney General Sharin Alumi, representing the respondent in this matter of the state of California.

Ann Timmer 2:56

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Bott and Mr. Alumi. Uh Ms. Alumi, excuse me, welcome. Um, and uh we take it that your time estimate is 15 minutes.

George Barron 3:05

Yes, sir.

Ann Timmer 3:06

All right, thank you very much. Mr. Barrens, let's turn to you, please.

George Barron 3:10

Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court. Question presented in this case is whether a police officer Who has found cocaine on a phone? Near the center console of a car parked on the side of the road. Had probable cause to arrest a person who was not in the car. And who was not connected to the car except incidentally. In the sense that he was standing near it. And who was not otherwise connected to the phone? Or to the cocaine that was on the phone. In other words, whether the police had probable cause. To arrest that person For possession of the cocaine. On the phone in the car. Where? I must add, another person was actually in the car. Sitting in the driver's seat right next to the phone and the cocaine.

George Barron 4:03

And Where another person came forward and claimed that phone as her own. The answer to this question presented is no. The officer did not have probable cause. To arrest appellate. As the United States Supreme Court said in Ibara versus Illinois. Where the standard is probably cause. A search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause. Particularized With respect to that person. While the officer here had probable cause particularized with respect to the driver of the car. And with respect to the person who claimed the telephone. The police officer did not have probable cause particularized with respect to appellant. Who was standing outside the car? And the police officer did not have probable cause to subject appellant to arrest and search incident to arrest.