 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Johnson5/14/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Jarred Johnson appeals his conviction entered upon his plea of no contest to drug possession charges following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Appellant contends that the court erred in upholding the constitutionality of the search of his residence pursuant to a probation search condition but conducted without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity. We shall affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 24, 2001, the District Attorney of Mendocino County filed an information charging appellant with possessing cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, §11350, subd.(a) , count one), possessing cocaine while armed with a loaded firearm (§11370.1, subd.(a), count two), cultivating marijuana (§11358, count three), and possessing more than one ounce of marijuana (§11357, subd.(c), count four). Appellant moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the warrantless probation search of his residence on April 26, 2001, alleging Fourth Amendment violations. Following the trial court's denial of his motion, appellant pled no contest to counts two and four in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. On June 6, 2002, the court placed appellant on a three year probation upon condition that he serve 220 days in county jail.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on June 17, 2002.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On April 7, 1999, appellant was placed on a 60-month summary probation for driving under the influence (case no. 99-30158). In a signed "Order of Summary Probation," appellant agreed to submit his "person, vehicle, place of residence or area over which [he has] control to search and seizure of narcotics, drugs or other contraband at any time of day or night, with or without search warrant without prior notice by any peace officer." (Italics added.)
On April 26, 2001, at approximately 5:00 p.m., six police officers from the Mendocino County Sheriff's Department went to appellant's residence in Willits to conduct a probation search. At the suppression motion, the police gave no reason for the search. Appellant was the only person on the premises at the time of the search. When asked by police if there was anything illegal on the premises, appellant replied that there was. In the kitchen area, police found 10 grams of marijuana in a glass jar, 15 to 20 grams of marijuana in a plastic bag, some marijuana seeds, two compact disc cases with white powdery residue, one of which had a cut drinking straw on top of it, and a prescription bottle containing 3.217 grams of cocaine. Appellant told the police that he did not know what the white substance was or where it came from. The police also located an unloaded rifle with boxes of ammunition nearby.
In appellant's bedroom, police found a loaded Ruger .357 magnum, a paper bag containing marijuana, and indicia in appellant's name next to it. In the back of the residence, police also located three flats of soil with five growing marijuana seedlings.
Appellant was arrested.
DISCUSSION
It has long been held that " probationer's home, like anyone else's, is protected by the Fourth Amendment's requirement that searches be `reasonable.' " (Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987) 483 U.S. 868, 873 (Griffin).) In deciding what constituted "reasonableness" in the contex
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|