People v. Baker

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1981 No. Crim. 10793Published

Before: Paras

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the warrantless search and seizure of a stolen vehicle parked in the defendants' front yard was lawful because the officer had probable cause and the automobile exception applied.

Issues

Did the officer have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle?
Did exigent circumstances exist to justify a warrantless search of the vehicle?
Did the entry into the defendants' front yard violate their reasonable expectation of privacy?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Probable cause to conduct a warrantless automobile search exists where an officer is aware of facts that would lead a man of ordinary caution and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion”

“Given probable cause, there is no constitutional difference between immobilization of an automobile pending issuance of a search warrant (as defendants insist Parkinson should have done) and an immediate search.”

“The sudden appearance of the Jeepster at the Baker residence and its apparent operative condition supplied the necessary exigent circumstances for the application of the automobile exception”

Opinion

PARAS, J.

Defendants appeal from judgments entered after a jury found them each guilty of auto theft (Veh. Code, § 10851) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496). James Baker was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Becky Baker was placed on probation and ordered to participate in an alternative sentencing program for 100 hours.

Defendants’ sole claim of error is in the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search and seizure of the stolen automobile in their front yard parking lot. They contend the officer had no probable cause to search the vehicle and no exigent circumstances existed to justify it. We disagree and affirm.

The suppression motion was submitted to the trial court on the transcript of the preliminary hearing. Testimony at that proceeding established that Andrew Beach’s restored $5,000, 1948 Willys Jeepster was stolen from his “Advanced Muffler Services” shop on the weekend of April 17, 1978. About a month later, a State Forestry employee reported a conversation he had overheard three weeks earlier to John Parkinson, a California Highway Patrol vehicle theft investigator. The forester told Parkinson he had heard two men in a bar discussing two subjects, the theft of the Jeepster and a car stealing and stripping operation conducted in Rio Linda on property surrounded by chicken coops. He described one of the men as 5 feet 10 inches tall, 200 pounds, under 30 years old, with medium length hair. Parkinson called Beach and obtained photographs of and information on the stolen Jeepster.

On or about August 23 the Sacramento police informed Parkinson that a James Baker (one of the defendants) had called and reported sighting a Jeepster that matched the description of the Beach stolen vehicle on Highway 20 between Clear Lake and Williams. Highway Patrol and sheriffs officers went there but found nothing in the area. Parkinson ran a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) check on Baker and found the description the forester had given him generally matched the one on Baker’s driver’s license, although there was a discrepancy in weight. He decided to drive past the Baker address whenever he was in

[71]

the area, and so informed Beach. Beach asked if he could do the same thing and Parkinson agreed; he told Beach to call if he saw his vehicle there.

People v. Baker

AI Brief

PARAS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief