 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kraft8/10/2000
y significance that defendant enumerates as having been seized outside the scope of the warrant and used against him at trial are of a character that searching officers would immediately have recognized as incriminating. To cite but one example, the seizure of shoelaces from defendant's garage and den closet was clearly proper under the plain view doctrine, given the significance of ligatures and the fact that victims were missing shoelaces in several of the murders charged to defendant.
e. Seizure of pharmacy records pursuant to subpoena duces tecum
In connection with his challenge to the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress, defendant contends the seizure of pharmacy records pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum violated his state constitutional right of privacy. As the Attorney General observes, however, in denying the suppression motion the trial court did not rule on the merits of defendant's challenge to the seizure of the pharmacy records. Rather, the court stated the proper procedure with respect to those records would be a motion to quash the subpoena, a motion defendant never made. Defendant, therefore, has waived the argument their seizure violated his privacy rights.
Were we to reach the merits of defendant's claim, we would find no error warranting reversal. Supposing for the sake of argument that defendant had a protected privacy interest in the records, it is not clear he was prejudiced by their seizure: The records themselves were not admitted into evidence, while actual drugs, found in defendant's house and car pursuant to the warrant searches, were admitted.
f. Search at defendant's former place of business
Defendant challenges the May 26, 1983, search warrant for the business premises of Lear-Siegler, where he had worked from January 1980 through January 1983. The warrant directed the seizure of seven cardboard boxes with defendant's name written on them, the contents of those boxes, nine business binders located atop the boxes, and any other material containing defendant's name. Investigator Sidebotham's affidavit in support of the warrant application incorporated the four earlier affidavits relating to the searches of defendant's car and house, and further stated that, on May 23, 1983, an anonymous informant had telephoned an investigator for the Orange County District Attorney's Office to say that defendant had a diary at Lear-Siegler's place of business. Sidebotham contacted the general manager, who confirmed defendant was employed there and had some property stored on the premises. A Lear-Siegler employee showed Sidebotham some cardboard boxes with defendant's name written on them, along with nine business binders on top of the boxes. On his own initiative, the employee had gone through the boxes and had found a black address-type book with defendant's name on it. Sidebotham placed significance on the fact that the Oregon and Michigan murders of which defendant was suspected had occurred during a period when defendant was engaged in work-related travel to those states. Sidebotham therefore suspected he might find business records linking defendant to both Orange County and out-of-state murders.
Defendant challenges the warrant for the search of Lear-Siegler's premises on the basis that the supporting affidavit relied on information gleaned from the searches of defendant's car and house, searches he contends were illegal and thus tainted the Lear-Siegler search. As discussed above, we have rejected defendant's claims that the earlier searches of his house and car were constitutionally invalid and therefore find no basis on which to invalidate the search at Lear-Siegler. Defendant also suggests, without citation t
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.
|
|