 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kraft8/10/2000
," "with no knowledge that the items being seized related to any particular crime." But he cites no authority requiring that items be associated with a particular crime as a prerequisite to their seizure; as noted, it is sufficient that the investigators have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of some crime.
Defendant argues the officers could not lawfully search every portion of his car, and in particular had no right to lift the floor mats and thereby discover photographs that eventually linked defendant to the murders of Loggins, DeVaul and Church. His argument is strained, especially since the warrant specifically authorized officers to search for photographs. By looking under the floormats, officers merely looked in a spot where the specified evidence of crime plausibly could be found, even if it was not a place where photos normally are stored.
Defendant also faults investigating officers for testing the entire car for blood. He contends a search for blood could not have been reasonably related to the death of Gambrel, whose body bore no obvious wounds. Assuming for argument's sake that the warrant was overbroad to the extent it authorized a search for blood without supporting allegations relating to the Gambrel murder, the blood inevitably would have been discovered during the search for items validly specified in the warrant. The warrant authorized officers to search for papers indicating who owned the car, and documents or photographs relating to any sexual motivation for killing Gambrel, as well as for shell casings, bullets, bullet fragments, hair and fiber samples, and the victim's clothing. In the course of their search, the officers could properly remove the passenger seat cover, as they reasonably could believe such items might be found there. In fact, once the seat cover had been removed, the sheriff's employee photographing the interior of the car leaned against the passenger seat and noticed it was saturated with a pinkish liquid. At that point, the officers suspected the presence of blood and took steps to confirm its presence. Having found a substance suspected to be blood, searching officers clearly had probable cause to believe criminal activity had occurred in the car, despite the absence of obvious wounds on Gambrel's body, and reasonably would have continued to search for blood elsewhere in the car.
Defendant complains the pinkish liquid was not determined to be human blood until a later time. To the extent he is suggesting the character of the liquid had to be definitively identified before police could seize it, he is wrong. At the time officers discovered the pinkish liquid, they had probable cause to believe it was blood and that it constituted evidence of crime.
Defendant argues further that searching officers acted in flagrant disregard of the scope of the warrant, thus rendering unconstitutional the seizure of numerous items not specifically named in the warrant. Citing United States v. Foster (10th Cir. 1996) 100 F.3d 846, 847, 849-850, he urges the proper remedy for this general search is blanket suppression of all items seized, including those specifically named in the warrant. Without passing upon the question ourselves, we previously have acknowledged that a majority of the federal circuits recognize the remedy of blanket suppression in a sufficiently egregious case. (See People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at pp. 1304-1307 [assuming, rather than accepting, availability of blanket suppression remedy, and concluding the defendant had failed to establish that searching officers acted in flagrant disregard of warrant].) Here, as well, we may assume for argument's sake that such a remedy may be appropriate in extreme circums
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|