Does section 1538.5, subdivision (d) of the California Penal Code prohibit refiling the same charges that were dismissed because of a suppression ruling?

This court has construed Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (d), on two occasions. We have held that it made suppressed evidence inadmissible at the sentencing hearing in the same case in which the Penal Code section 1538.5 hearing was held (People v. Belleci (1979) 24 Cal.3d 879, 157 Cal.Rptr. 503, 598 P.2d 473), and prohibits refiling the same charges that were dismissed because of a suppression ruling. (Schlick v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th 310, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 406, 841 P.2d 926.) Nothing in either case suggests that the subdivision applies outside the criminal law realm.

In Schlick v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th at page 316, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 406, 841 P.2d 926, we left open the possibility that Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (d), might not even apply to all criminal cases. We distinguished the refiling of the same charges in the same county, the situation in Schlick, from "multi-county prosecutions, or ... cases wherein new or different charges are brought," and did not decide the latter questions. (Schlick v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 316, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 406, 841 P.2d 926.) As in Schlick, we need not now decide the difficult question of the application of that subdivision to other criminal cases. We conclude, however, that Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (d), does not itself prohibit relitigation of the legality of the arrest in the administrative proceeding.