People v. Howard

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

Defendant was charged with receiving stolen property, in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code. After his motion to suppress evidence, brought under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, was denied, he pled guilty and was sentenced to state prison. He has appealed; we affirm.

Defendant’s guilt was shown by items discovered in his apartment in the course of a search, conducted under the circumstances hereinafter described. The sole issue on this appeal is whether that search was lawful. We hold that it was.

Defendant had been committed to the California Rehabilitation Center and, at the times herein involved, was on parole from that institution. One of the conditions of his parole was: “You shall submit to a search of your person, your residence and any property under your control upon request by your agent, any agent of the Department of Corrections or law enforcement officer.”

Police officers had received information that defendant was trafficking in narcotics. They presented that information to defendant’s parole officer, Lilbem Parker. Parker asked the officers to search defendant and his residence to verify that information. Pursuant to the request, the officers went to defendant’s apartment, sought and were granted admittance, and, in the search that followed, discovered the stolen items on which the present prosecution was based.

[49]

It is well settled that, under parole conditions such as were here imposed on defendant,

1

his parole agent may, at any time, with or without suspicion, search the parolee and his residence. As the court said in

People

v.

Thompson

(1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 76, at pages 84-85 [60 Cal.Rptr. 203]:

“It is well established that although a parolee is entitled to basic rights entitling him to constitutional protection against arbitrary or oppressive official action (see