People v. Young CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 2025 No. F087981Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the detention of an occupant in the immediate vicinity of a residence during a probation search is constitutionally permissible, and therefore the subsequent search of the defendant's vehicle and residence was not fruit of the poisonous tree.

Issues

Whether the initial detention of the defendant on a public street during a probation search of a residence was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the evidence obtained from the defendant's vehicle and residence should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a warrant to search for contraband … implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.”

“Summers applies to occupants in “the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.””

“Because we conclude the initial detention was proper, we reject appellant’s argument that probation’s subsequent findings were fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Filed 9/22/25 P. v. Young CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087981 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF191751A) v.

JOE YOUNG, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Tiffany Organ-Bowles, Judge.† Gabriel Silvers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ian Whitney, Heather Gimle and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Fain, J.†† † Judge Michael G. Bush presided over appellant’s motion to suppress/motion to quash traverse warrant. Judge Tiffany Organ-Bowles presided over the jury trial and sentenced appellant. †† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Appellant Joe Young appeals from the judgment of his conviction by jury for transporting a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11352; count 1); misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (§ 11377, subd. (a); count 4); and misdemeanor possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (§ 11364; count 5). As to count 1, the trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to the lower term of three years, split between county jail time and mandatory supervision. As to counts 4 and 5, the court sentenced appellant to 180 days in county jail for each offense to run concurrent to the sentence imposed in count 1. On appeal, appellant contends his pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was erroneously denied. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information with transportation of a controlled substance, to wit, fentanyl (§ 11352; count 1); possession of a controlled substance for sale, to wit, methamphetamine (§ 11351; count 2); possession of methamphetamine while armed (§ 11370.1, subd. (a); count 3); misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, to wit, methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a); count 4); and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (§ 11364; count 5). He pled not guilty to the charges. Appellant thereafter filed a motion to quash and traverse the search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence related to a search and seizure occurring on January 4, 2022. Evidence to be suppressed included firearms, suspected drugs, scales and baggies, and drug paraphernalia forming the basis of the charges alleged in the information. The People opposed the motions.

People v. Young CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief