People v. Veronica

California Court of Appeal Jul 2, 1980 No. Crim. 35780Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A parolee's warrantless search condition does not authorize police to search the private personal effects of a cohabitant who is not subject to such a condition, absent evidence that the items are jointly possessed or used by the parolee.

Issues

Whether a parolee's consent to a warrantless search of his residence extends to the personal property of a cohabitant who is not subject to a search condition.
Whether the search of the defendant's wife's purse was lawful under the defendant's parole search condition.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Neither reason nor authority support the proposition that police may conduct a general search of the private belongings of one who lives with a [parolee].”

“While a consent search of a parolee’s home is an exception to this basic rule, it is not, however, an end in itself which justifies further invasions of constitutionally protected zones of privacy.”

[908]

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment which followed his nolo contendere pleas to charges of possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350) and possession of a pistol by an ex-felon (Pen. Code, § 12021), accompanied by his admission of a prior felony conviction for the sale of heroin for which he had served a term in prison. Additional charges were dismissed.

Defendant’s transgressions were discovered by law enforcement agents as a result of a warrantless search of defendant’s family residence, made pursuant to a consent for such search executed by defendant as a condition of his parole. When the search was conducted defendant was not at home. The officers were admitted by his wife who spoke no English. One of the officers informed her that they wanted “buscar su casa... .Como una condición de parole de Solario [■sic].” The record indicates that Mrs. Veronica submitted to the officers’ announcement without protest.

The evidence seized as a result of the search consisted of (1) several toy balloons containing a substance resembling heroin residue; (2) a number of tinfoil bindles containing what appeared to be heroin; (3) one paper bindle containing what appeared to be cocaine; (4) a hand gun; and (5) about $1,500 in small bills. The first four items were found in areas of the home shared by defendant and others. Item 5 was found “in a purse hanging on the rear of the bedroom door,... It was a brown leather purse with designs on it. It appeared to be a purse that a female would wear.”

Defendant made a motion to suppress all of the fruits of the search. In argument, however, counsel stressed that the purse was a special case because on the evidence adduced it was clearly the property of Mrs. Veronica.

[909]

“The cases say that just because one person lives in a house with joint occupants, that does not mean that all the other joint occupants give up their right, their Fourth Amendment rights because of the other joint occupant has a condition of—a search condition attached to parole. . . .

People v. Veronica

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief