Eric Perez gets pulled over in a traffic stop. It turns out he's been driving on a suspended license since 1993. (!) Mr. Perez could be arrested, but the officer doesn't feel like it, and cites him instead. But the officer doesn't want him driving, so has the car towed. They conduct an inventory search, find some drugs and a firearm (which, as a felon, he's not allowed to have), and charge him accordingly.
Mr. Perez says the search was illegal and moves to suppress, the trial court denies the motion, but the Court of Appeal reverses. Since the vehicle was parked legally, and the driver not arrested, there's no reasonable basis to tow. So Mr. Perez wins, and he gets to withdraw his conditional no contest plea on remand if he wants.
Here's the thing, though.
Mr. Perez was sentenced to two years probation. That was roughly a year ago -- and his offense was nearly four years ago. So he's pretty much done already, even under the original deal.
So, on the one hand, why would Mr. Perez withdraw the plea? He's pretty much done with the sentence already. Just a little more probation left. Why withdraw the plea, which was pursuant to a deal, and risk getting convicted at trial and potentially subjected to a much more serious sentence?
On the other hand, assuming that Mr. Perez withdraws his plea, why even retry the guy in the first place? Presumably he's done a fine job during his previous year of probation, and doesn't have any additional offenses in the last four years. The government thought that two years of probation was a reasonable sentence previously. Why spend the time and money on a retrial just to keep the guy on probation for another year?
This opinion is important from a policy perspective. It matters a lot whether the police are allowed to tow your car.
But practically, for Mr. Perez? Tough to really justify doing much more on remand in this particular case.
