People v. Spratt

California Court of Appeal Apr 14, 1980 No. Crim. 35520Published

Before: Woods

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a warrantless search conducted by officers who reasonably believed they were acting under a valid probation search condition was lawful, even though the defendant's status had changed to parole, because the officers acted on reasonable grounds and the defendant consented to the search.

Issues

Whether a warrantless search is illegal when officers rely on a revoked probation search condition while the defendant is actually subject to a valid parole search condition.
Whether the search of the defendant's residence exceeded the scope of the search and seizure condition.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The test of legality of a search is that of reasonableness and the court must look to all of the circumstances known to the officers prior to implementing the search.”

“We therefore conclude that the officers had a right to rely on the reasonableness of their grounds and cannot be held to have proceeded negligently or indifferently as contended.”

Opinion

WOODS, J.

Defendant has appealed from his conviction for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351, possession for sale of a controlled substance, cocaine.

Appellant filed notice of motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. This motion was argued and denied.

Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to three years formal probation on condition that he spend one year in the county jail. A stay of execution was granted pending the outcome of this appeal. Appellant raises the following contention on appeal:

That the officers conducted a warrantless search of the defendant and seizure of his property without probable or reasonable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore his section 1538.5 motion to suppress the evidence thus obtained should have been granted.

Summary of the Facts

On January 13, 1978, Officer Hill of the Long Beach Police Department received information from an unidentified informant that a person known as June Bug was involved in the selling of narcotics at 2691 San

[565]

Francisco Street in Long Beach. This information was communicated to Officer Scholtz, who was then investigating a person of that name. Officer Scholtz was familiar with the name June Bug from prior narcotics investigations and knew Mr. Spratt, the defendant herein, to be June Bug. Two days later, Officer Scholtz went to the Long Beach Police Department, records department, and obtained a copy of a minute order showing Mr. Spratt to be on probation with condition 19 search and seizure in effect. The probation termination date on this document was February 15, 1979.

On January 15, 1978, a surveillance was set up at 2691 San Francisco Street by Officers Scholtz and Smith. A blue Cadillac with personalized plates known by the officers to be Mr. Spratt’s car was parked in front of this address.

On January 16, 1978, Officer Milovich of the Long Beach Police Department was contacted by a reliable confidential informant whom he had used in the past. This informant advised him that Mr. Spratt, also known as June Bug, was living at 2691 San Francisco Street and was dealing cocaine from that location. The informant had personally observed Mr. Spratt selling narcotics and had purchased narcotics from Mr. Spratt. Officer Milovich relayed this information to Officers Scholtz and Smith on the same day.

People v. Spratt

AI Brief

WOODS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief