People v. Earls

California Court of Appeal Sep 2, 1980 No. Crim. 10148Published

Before: Regan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the warrantless seizure and laboratory testing of a defendant's clothing, which was lawfully taken during booking, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the court held that defendants are entitled to presentence conduct credits to be calculated by the Department of Corrections.

Issues

Whether the warrantless laboratory analysis of clothing seized during booking violates the Fourth Amendment.
Whether a defendant is entitled to behavior and participation credits for presentence time spent in local custody.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The argument is a fruitless exercise in semantics as it ignores the long-standing principle that a warrantless search of a person at booking and seizure of his property is reasonable.”

“During their period of police custody an arrested person’s personal effects, like his person itself, are subject to reasonable inspection, examination, and test.”

“If otherwise eligible, defendant is entitled to behavior and participation credits attributable to his presentence time in local custody.”

[1011]

Opinion

REGAN, Acting P. J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and of using a firearm in the commission of the crime (Pen. Code, § 12022.5). Defendant admitted a prior 1972 conviction under Penal Code section 211 and was sentenced accordingly.

On appeal, defendant raises issues of unlawful search and seizure and of entitlement to behavior (good time) and participation (work time) credit for presentence time spent in the county jail.

On December 1, 1977, defendant and another male, both wearing ski masks and carrying guns, entered the Capitol Federal Savings and Loan at 2717 Marconi Avenue in Sacramento County.

Defendant wore a navy blue ski mask with gold trim. The other man wore a lavender ski mask. Despite the blue ski mask, the bank tellers were able to tell that defendant was a young white male of average height and build. The man in the lavender mask waited near the door with a drawn gun while defendant robbed each teller.

During the robbery, one teller triggered the silent alarm system, which notified law enforcement agencies and activated the bank surveillance cameras. One camera took an exposed profile shot of defendant removing the navy blue ski mask as he exited the bank. The lavender ski mask was subsequently recovered in the immediate area of the savings and loan by an FBI agent.

Defendant was arrested on a Vehicle Code violation on the night of the robbery; at that time his clothing was confiscated. Several days later, defendant became a suspect in the robbery and his blue jeans were sent to the FBI laboratory for analysis. At trial, an expert witness testified that fibers from the lavender ski mask and also navy blue synthetic fibers were found on the blue jeans worn by defendant when arrested on the night of the robbery. An expert witness also testified to the similarity of defendant’s features with those depicted in the surveillance photograph and the similarity of the “wear pattern” of defendant’s blue jeans to those in the photograph.

Defendant contends the evidence obtained from the laboratory analysis of his blue jeans should have been excluded under the Fourth

People v. Earls

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief