Search conditions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
===Search excluded=== | ===Search excluded=== | ||
;''People v. Alders'' (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 313 | ;''People v. Alders'' (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 313 | ||
: | :A search of a woman's coat belonging to the co-resident of a male probationer was improper, because clearly the woman's coat did not belong to male probationer. | ||
A search of a woman's coat belonging to the co-resident of a male probationer was improper, because clearly the woman's coat did not belong to male probationer. | |||
;People v. Veronica (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 906 | ;''People v. Veronica'' (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 906 | ||
:Search of parolee's wife's purse excluded. The purse did not belong to parolee. | |||
===Search not excluded=== | ===Search not excluded=== | ||
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) | ||
Revision as of 21:34, 25 March 2016
Search conditions refers a condition of release, whether it be probation, parole, or bail, that requires submitting to warrantless searches. It is all called a 4th waiver though some practitioners strongly object to that term.
People and property in close proximity to person with search conditions
People v Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 682 ("Moreover, officers generally may only search those portions of the residence they reasonably believe the probationer has complete or joint control over.")
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.").
Search excluded
- People v. Alders (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 313
- A search of a woman's coat belonging to the co-resident of a male probationer was improper, because clearly the woman's coat did not belong to male probationer.
- People v. Veronica (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 906
- Search of parolee's wife's purse excluded. The purse did not belong to parolee.
Search not excluded
People v. Ermi (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 277 People v Smith (2002)