Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
The People of the State of California v. Bryan Meneses Ferreira
Date: 01-24-2025
Case Number: VCF391227A
Judge: Glade F. Roper
Court: Superior Court, Tulare County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney: Tulare County, California District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Visalia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Click Here For The Best Visalia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Visalia, California criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with filing a false report.
On January 15, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney's Office filed a 48-count indictment, charging defendant with filing a false report (§ 118.1; counts 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37); conspiracy to commit a crime of perjury (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 118, subd. (a); count 2); conspiracy to commit a crime of false report (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 118.1; counts 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 33, 36); perjury by declaration (§ 118; counts 3, 7, 10, 13, 20, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, 38); conspiracy to unlawfully use an electronic tracking device to determine location or movement of a person (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 637.7, subd. (a); count 39); oral copulation under color of authority (§ 288a, subd. (k); count 40); oral copulation by force or fear (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 41); unauthorized disclosure of confidential information (Veh. Code, § 1808.45; counts 42-46); conspiracy to sell marijuana (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); Health &Saf. Code, § 11360; count 47); and embezzlement and falsification of accounts by a public officer (§ 424, subd. (a); count 48).
On June 12, 2020, defendant filed a motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, challenging 14 search warrants authored by Tulare Police Department Officer Raymond Guerrero and signed by Judge Walter J. Gorelick.
On June 25, 2020, the prosecutor filed a supplemental brief regarding defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from an electronic device.
On June 29, 2020, the trial court held a Franks[2] hearing on the motion to suppress evidence.
On July 1, 2020, the prosecutor filed an opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence.
On July 7, 2020, defendant filed a closing brief in support of his motion to quash/traverse search warrants and to suppress evidence.
On July 10, 2020, the prosecutor filed a closing brief and opposition to defendant's motion. On the same day, the prosecutor also filed a supplemental closing brief regarding defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from electronic devices.
On July 14, 2020, defendant filed a reply to the prosecutor's opposition.
On July 16, 2020, the trial court denied defendant's motion to quash/traverse the search warrants and suppress evidence. The court concluded defendant lacked standing to challenge seven of the warrants, and that the challenges to the remaining warrants lacked merit.
Thereafter, defendant filed a writ of mandate with this court (case No. F081545). Defendant challenged the denial of the section 1538.5 motion as to the search warrants the trial court found defendant had standing to challenge. On February 11, 2021, this court denied the writ.
On March 2, 2021, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. On April 29, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss the indictment.
On April 30, 2021, the trial court issued a ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court ordered count 3 (perjury by declaration), count 39 (unlawfully placing a tracking device on a vehicle), and count 48 (embezzlement of public funds) dismissed. All other counts remained.
On October 21, 2021, defendant filed a second motion to suppress search warrants 1 and 2 based on newly discovered evidence received after the first motion hearing related to the search warrants.
On November 5, 2021, the prosecutor filed an opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence, arguing the issues defendant raised were moot as they had already been litigated and decided.
On May 2, May 24, and August 9, 2022, a Franks hearing was held on the second motion to suppress.
On September 9, 2022, defendant filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2.
On September 22, 2022, the prosecutor filed a supplemental points and authorities in opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence.
On September 27, 2022, defendant filed a reply to the prosecutor's opposition to motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2.
On September 30, 2022, the trial court denied defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2 and suppress evidence. The court concluded that no new evidence was produced that would alter the court's prior ruling.
* * *
Legal issue Does the failure to timely file search warrants and provide proper ECPA notice warrant the suppression of evidence collected from electronic devices?
Key Phrases California Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Search warrants. Suppression of evidence. Plea agreement. Fourth Amendment violation.
On January 15, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney's Office filed a 48-count indictment, charging defendant with filing a false report (§ 118.1; counts 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 15, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37); conspiracy to commit a crime of perjury (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 118, subd. (a); count 2); conspiracy to commit a crime of false report (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 118.1; counts 4, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 33, 36); perjury by declaration (§ 118; counts 3, 7, 10, 13, 20, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, 38); conspiracy to unlawfully use an electronic tracking device to determine location or movement of a person (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 637.7, subd. (a); count 39); oral copulation under color of authority (§ 288a, subd. (k); count 40); oral copulation by force or fear (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 41); unauthorized disclosure of confidential information (Veh. Code, § 1808.45; counts 42-46); conspiracy to sell marijuana (§ 182, subd. (a)(1); Health &Saf. Code, § 11360; count 47); and embezzlement and falsification of accounts by a public officer (§ 424, subd. (a); count 48).
On June 12, 2020, defendant filed a motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5, challenging 14 search warrants authored by Tulare Police Department Officer Raymond Guerrero and signed by Judge Walter J. Gorelick.
On June 25, 2020, the prosecutor filed a supplemental brief regarding defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from an electronic device.
On June 29, 2020, the trial court held a Franks[2] hearing on the motion to suppress evidence.
On July 1, 2020, the prosecutor filed an opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence.
On July 7, 2020, defendant filed a closing brief in support of his motion to quash/traverse search warrants and to suppress evidence.
On July 10, 2020, the prosecutor filed a closing brief and opposition to defendant's motion. On the same day, the prosecutor also filed a supplemental closing brief regarding defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from electronic devices.
On July 14, 2020, defendant filed a reply to the prosecutor's opposition.
On July 16, 2020, the trial court denied defendant's motion to quash/traverse the search warrants and suppress evidence. The court concluded defendant lacked standing to challenge seven of the warrants, and that the challenges to the remaining warrants lacked merit.
Thereafter, defendant filed a writ of mandate with this court (case No. F081545). Defendant challenged the denial of the section 1538.5 motion as to the search warrants the trial court found defendant had standing to challenge. On February 11, 2021, this court denied the writ.
On March 2, 2021, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. On April 29, 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss the indictment.
On April 30, 2021, the trial court issued a ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment. The court ordered count 3 (perjury by declaration), count 39 (unlawfully placing a tracking device on a vehicle), and count 48 (embezzlement of public funds) dismissed. All other counts remained.
On October 21, 2021, defendant filed a second motion to suppress search warrants 1 and 2 based on newly discovered evidence received after the first motion hearing related to the search warrants.
On November 5, 2021, the prosecutor filed an opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence, arguing the issues defendant raised were moot as they had already been litigated and decided.
On May 2, May 24, and August 9, 2022, a Franks hearing was held on the second motion to suppress.
On September 9, 2022, defendant filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of his motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2.
On September 22, 2022, the prosecutor filed a supplemental points and authorities in opposition to defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants and suppress evidence.
On September 27, 2022, defendant filed a reply to the prosecutor's opposition to motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2.
On September 30, 2022, the trial court denied defendant's motion to quash/traverse search warrants 1 and 2 and suppress evidence. The court concluded that no new evidence was produced that would alter the court's prior ruling.
* * *
Legal issue Does the failure to timely file search warrants and provide proper ECPA notice warrant the suppression of evidence collected from electronic devices?
Key Phrases California Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Search warrants. Suppression of evidence. Plea agreement. Fourth Amendment violation.
Outcome:
On September 13, 2023, defendant pled no contest to count 5 of the indictment, filing a false report in violation of section 118.1. The court suspended imposition of judgment and placed defendant on probation for a term of one year. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed pursuant to the prosecutor's motion in exchange for the plea bargain.
Affirmed
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of The People of the State of California v. Bryan Meneses Fe...?
The outcome was: On September 13, 2023, defendant pled no contest to count 5 of the indictment, filing a false report in violation of section 118.1. The court suspended imposition of judgment and placed defendant on probation for a term of one year. The remaining counts of the indictment were dismissed pursuant to the prosecutor's motion in exchange for the plea bargain. Affirmed
Which court heard The People of the State of California v. Bryan Meneses Fe...?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Tulare County, California, CA. The presiding judge was Glade F. Roper.
Who were the attorneys in The People of the State of California v. Bryan Meneses Fe...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Tulare County, California District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Visalia Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was The People of the State of California v. Bryan Meneses Fe... decided?
This case was decided on January 24, 2025.