Search conditions - Revision history

Sysop: /* Search of third parties in proximity to person with search condtiions */

2025-03-31T18:18:11Z

Search of third parties in proximity to person with search condtiions

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 31 March 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:

	''People v. Gutierrez'' (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146, held it violation of a Fourth Amendment where defendant "ordered out of the house, subjected to patdown search, and directed to sit down on front porch or in the front yard" for the length of search of a probationer.		''People v. Gutierrez'' (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146, held it violation of a Fourth Amendment where defendant "ordered out of the house, subjected to patdown search, and directed to sit down on front porch or in the front yard" for the length of search of a probationer.


			People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 indicates there should only be a probation search of common areas, but People v. Ledesma (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 857 seems to allow protective sweeps during probation search. This was called a protective sweep because it was looking for people, not for objects, and the shotgun was in plain sight, not part of a search.

	==Search of residence==		==Search of residence==

Sysop: /* Good Faith Exception */

2024-06-23T22:27:30Z

Good Faith Exception

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 23 June 2024
Line 68:		Line 68:
	==Good Faith Exception==		==Good Faith Exception==
	Herring v. U.S. (2009) 555 U.S. 135, overruling People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22. Unless the officer's conduct could be described as “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent” or in some instances “recurring or systemic negligence” the exclusionary rule does not apply.		Herring v. U.S. (2009) 555 U.S. 135, overruling People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22. Unless the officer's conduct could be described as “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent” or in some instances “recurring or systemic negligence” the exclusionary rule does not apply.

			''People v. Prichett'' (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 355, in regards to termination of probation under operation of law under AB1950, but not officially and publicly terminated.

Sysop at 22:24, 23 June 2024

2024-06-23T22:24:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 23 June 2024
Line 65:		Line 65:
	===Search not excluded===		===Search not excluded===
	;''People v. Schmitz'' (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909		;''People v. Schmitz'' (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909

			==Good Faith Exception==
			Herring v. U.S. (2009) 555 U.S. 135, overruling People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22. Unless the officer's conduct could be described as “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent” or in some instances “recurring or systemic negligence” the exclusionary rule does not apply.

Sysop at 03:49, 12 March 2022

2022-03-12T03:49:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:49, 12 March 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 798 ("those who live with a probationer maintain normal expectations of privacy over their persons. In addition, they retain valid privacy expectations in residential areas subject to their exclusive access or control, so long as there is no basis for officers to reasonably believe the probationer has authority over those areas.").		People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 798 ("those who live with a probationer maintain normal expectations of privacy over their persons. In addition, they retain valid privacy expectations in residential areas subject to their exclusive access or control, so long as there is no basis for officers to reasonably believe the probationer has authority over those areas.").

	A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (~~Dec. 12,~~ 2013~~, H037910~~) ~~___~~ Cal.App.4th ~~___ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037910~~.~~PDF>~~)		A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 60.)


	==Search of third parties in proximity to person with search condtiions==		==Search of third parties in proximity to person with search condtiions==
Line 21:		Line 20:


	There is a difference between authority over a room, and access to a room. A probation search is for rooms in which the probationer has authority over; it it not for rooms ~~in which~~ the probationer has access to.		There is a difference between authority over a room, and access to a room. A probation search is for rooms in which the probationer has authority over; it is not for rooms that the probationer has access to. The Court said, "it flouts widely held social exxpectations to define joint access as simply having the physical ability to open a door, walk into a room, and open drawers. (''People v. Carreon (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 866, 879.)

	The Court said, "it flouts widely held social exxpectations to define joint access as simply having the physical ability to open a door, walk into a room, and open drawers. (''People v. Carreon (2016)


Line 49:		Line 46:
	;''People v. Sandoval'' (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 205		;''People v. Sandoval'' (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 205

	;''People v. Carreon'' (~~June 30,~~ 2016, ~~H040632)~~		;''People v. Carreon'' (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 866
			:When probationer is renting room, search conditions don't extend to whole residence.

	===Search not excluded===		===Search not excluded===

Line 56:		Line 55:

	;''People v. Ermi'' (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 277		;''People v. Ermi'' (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 277

	;''People v Smith'' (2002)		;''People v Smith'' (2002)

Sysop at 18:48, 7 July 2021

2021-07-07T18:48:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:48, 7 July 2021
Line 17:		Line 17:

	''People v. Robles'' (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789.)		''People v. Robles'' (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789.)

			''People v. Ermi'' (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 277.)

Sysop at 18:47, 7 July 2021

2021-07-07T18:47:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, 7 July 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (Dec. 12, 2013, H037910) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037910.PDF>)		A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (Dec. 12, 2013, H037910) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037910.PDF>)


			==Search of third parties in proximity to person with search condtiions==

			''People v. Woods'' (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668.

			''People v. Robles'' (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789.)


			There is a difference between authority over a room, and access to a room. A probation search is for rooms in which the probationer has authority over; it it not for rooms in which the probationer has access to.

			The Court said, "it flouts widely held social exxpectations to define joint access as simply having the physical ability to open a door, walk into a room, and open drawers. (''People v. Carreon (2016)



			People v. Mason (1971) 5 Cal.3d 759

			Russi v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 160

	Detention of others during probation search		Detention of others during probation search

Sysop: /* People and property in close proximity to person with search conditions */

2020-03-09T22:10:28Z

People and property in close proximity to person with search conditions

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 9 March 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:
	A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (Dec. 12, 2013, H037910) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037910.PDF>)		A stop of a vehicle made without reasonable suspicion is not subsequently cured by the discovery that one of the passengers has a search condition. (People v. Bates (Dec. 12, 2013, H037910) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037910.PDF>)


			Detention of others during probation search

			''People v. Matelski'' (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 837

			''People v. Rios'' (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 584

			''People v. Gutierrez'' (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146, held it violation of a Fourth Amendment where defendant "ordered out of the house, subjected to patdown search, and directed to sit down on front porch or in the front yard" for the length of search of a probationer.

	==Search of residence==		==Search of residence==

Sysop: /* Search not excluded */

2019-08-19T22:17:12Z

Search not excluded

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 19 August 2019
Line 37:		Line 37:

	===Search not excluded===		===Search not excluded===
	;''People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909		;''People v. Schmitz'' (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909

Sysop: /* Search not excluded= */

2019-08-19T22:16:58Z

Search not excluded=

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:16, 19 August 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	===Search excluded===		===Search excluded===

	===Search not excluded====		===Search not excluded===
	;''People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909		;''People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909

Sysop: /* Electronic devices */

2017-05-20T23:43:35Z

Electronic devices

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 20 May 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Electronic devices==		==Electronic devices==
	People v. Bryant (Apr. 17, 2017, No. B271300), available at [1]		People v. Bryant (Apr. 17, 2017, No. B271300), available at [http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B271300M.PDF]

	==People and property in close proximity to person with search conditions==		==People and property in close proximity to person with search conditions==