People v. Garcia-Lara CA1/5

── People v. Garcia-Lara CA1/5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 P. v. Garcia-Lara CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A174834 v. ALVARO EMILIO GARCIA-LARA, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. Defendant and Appellant. Nos. 01-24-04541, AP25-00039) Defendant Alvaro Emilio Garcia-Lara challenges the reversal by the appellate division of the Contra Costa Superior Court (appellate division) of a lower court order granting his motion to suppress evidence collected during an investigation for driving under the influence (DUI) following a traffic stop. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).)1 We granted defendant’s motion to certify this case for transfer from the appellate division to resolve the issue of whether a police officer’s observation of a driver’s red, glossy eyes and strong odor of cologne provided reasonable suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation after instigating a traffic stop. We now conclude these observations, without more, do not provide the requisite reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, we reverse the appellate division’s 1 Unless otherwise specified, all statutory citations herein are to the Penal Code. 1 judgment, reinstate the trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion to suppress, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 On November 16, 2024, around 2:25 a.m., Concord Police Officer Zachary Schaffer saw a gray vehicle stopped at a red light at an intersection. The vehicle then proceeded to drive through the intersection while the light remained red, prompting Officer Schaffer to instigate a traffic stop to address the red light violation. Officer Schaffer contacted the driver, later identified as defendant, and asked for identification.3 Officer Schaffer noticed defendant had red, glossy eyes and a strong odor of cologne. Based on these observations, Officer Schaffer suspected defendant may have been intoxicated. However, because defendant indicated that he only spoke Spanish, Officer Schaffer paused the traffic stop to request assistance from a Spanish-speaking officer. Officer Molina, who spoke Spanish, arrived within about three minutes. With language assistance from Officer Molina, defendant advised Officer Schaffer that he had been working construction earlier that evening. The officer did not notice any odor of alcohol emanating from defendant. Nonetheless, Officer Schaffer “[i]mmediately” began a DUI investigation, instructing defendant to exit his vehicle to undergo field sobriety tests (FST). Defendant was later arrested for a DUI. On December 6, 2024, a complaint was filed charging defendant with three misdemeanors: driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, 2 Our recitation of the facts is taken from the police report produced by the prosecution during discovery and the transcript of testimony from Officer Zachary Schaffer at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress. 3 Defendant produced a Nicaraguan identification card rather than a valid driver’s license. 2 § 23152, subd. (a); count 1); driving with 0.08 percent blood-alcohol content (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b); count 2); and driving a motor vehicle without a vali