 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Thompson11/17/2004
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the police from making a warrantless entry into a dwelling. Case law has established a "bright line" at the home's threshold, i.e. it's door. Were we to sanction the instant entry, the line would not be bright. Instead, it would be dim, if not altogether erased.
After the trial court denied his suppression motion, Daniel Lyon Thompson pled guilty to driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or higher (Veh.Code, § 23152, subd. (b)) and resisting arrest (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). A majority of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County affirmed the judgment, concluding that the warrantless entry into appellant's residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Judge Anderle dissented, relying on dicta in a recent opinion from this court. (People v. Schofield (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 968, 975, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 429.) We ordered transfer to settle an important question of law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 62.) As shall be explained, we meant what we said in Schofield. We reverse the judgment of the appellate division.
Facts
On July 21, 2003, Madelene Orvos found appellant passed out in a Ford Bronco in her apartment parking space. A neighbor asked him to move his vehicle out of Orvos' parking space. Appellant was intoxicated, threw an empty Vodka bottle on the ground, and drove away.
Orvos called 911, got into a car, and followed appellant. After she lost sight of him, a police officer found the Ford Bronco parked outside appellant's residence. Orvos identified the vehicle which still had a warm engine. Two officers knocked on the residence door. Slavka Kovarick opened the door and said that the Ford Bronco belonged to Daniel, a man who rented a room from her, later identified as appellant. Because her grandchildren were asleep, she refused to let the officers enter her residence. She told the officers that she would get Daniel.
Kovarick returned and said that Daniel was asleep. Through the open door, the officers could see through the house into the backyard. Appellant was in the backyard. The officers gestured for him to come to the door. Appellant entered the house through the back door. He stopped about seven feet from the open front door, and told the officers that he did not want to talk to them. When appellant turned and walked towards his bedroom, the officers entered the house, handcuffed appellant, and forcibly took him outside. Orvos identified appellant and made a citizen's arrest.
Appellate Division Opinion
Relying on People v. Hampton (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 27, 209 Cal.Rptr. 905, the majority of the appellate division ruled that the warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that Orvos, who had probable cause to make a citizen's arrest, somehow authorized the officers' entry into the residence: "[T]he exigencies of preventing defendant from fleeing and possibly again driving while intoxicated, and of preserving evidence of his blood alcohol content, along with the physical presence of the complaining private citizen, ... all combined to justify the officers' entry to follow and apprehend defendant...."
*2 In his dissent, Judge Anderle adhered to the Schofield dicta (see infra.) and said: "It is unaccountable why there was the necessity to make an entry without a warrant in this circumstance. There are judges on standby for the purpose of effectuating emergency protective orders, search warrants and arrest warrants.... The potential of lost evidence because of 'burn off' does not support the decision to make the arrest. Among other things, that problem is always subject to an expert's calculation."
Warrantless Entry Into a Residence
It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|