People v. Alders

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 1978 No. Docket Nos. 17473, 17744Published

Before: Halvonik

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while a probationer's search condition justifies the search of a shared residence and common areas, it does not authorize a general search of the private belongings of a non-probationer co-occupant absent probable cause. Consequently, the conviction for the firearm found in the probationer's control was affirmed, while convictions predicated on the search of the co-occupant's private coat were reversed.

Issues

Whether the police complied with the knock-notice requirements of Penal Code section 844.
Whether a probationer's search condition justifies a warrantless search of the private personal property of a co-occupant who is not subject to such a condition.

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

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 probationer.”

“A joint occupant’s right of privacy in his home is not completely at the mercy of another with whom he shares legal possession.”

“If there is probable cause to believe that such a transfer has occurred, a search will be warranted. If not, the search is not reasonable.”

Opinion

HALVONIK, J.

Appellants challenge the legality of searches and seizures conducted at their residence. Appellants Kaufer and Alders entered pleas of guilty to charges of violating Health and Safety Code section 11366 (maintaining a place for the distribution and use of heroin). Appellant Garrison entered pleas of no contest to a charge of violating Health and Safety Code section 11351, subdivision (a) (possession of heroin for sale) and a charge of violating Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (a) (felon in possession of a concealed firearm). Prior to their plea, appellants moved to suppress the evidence upon which their convictions are predicated; this appeal is pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m).

At the time of the questioned seizures, Garrison was a probationer who had been convicted of possessing heroin. His probation was subject to the condition that he submit to search and seizure of his person, vehicle or place of residence for narcotics at any time, day or night, by any police officer without a warrant.

In December of 1976, San Jose Police Officer Fred Kingsley began receiving information from three separate sources that Garrison was using and selling heroin at his residence. Kingsley so advised Garrison’s

[316]

probation officer who asked Kingsley to make a search of Garrison’s residence.

On February 4, 1977, at about 10:45 a.m., Kingsley, accompanied by some other officers, all in plainclothes, went to Garrison’s residence in San Jose. Kingsley knocked on the door and, peering through a sheer curtain covering the door window, saw Garrison, with whom he was familiar. He spoke to Garrison for about two minutes in an attempt to persuade him to open the door. When the attempt was unsuccessful, he took off his belt badge, held it up to the pane of glass, identified himself as a San Jose police officer, stated that he was there to conduct a probation search and demanded admittance. Garrison did not comply but, instead, turned and ran toward the back of the house. Kingsley forced the door and followed Garrison through the house to a room in which there was a bed. Garrison knelt at the side of the bed and plunged his hand between the mattress and the box spring. At this point, Kingsley caught up with him and took him into custody. A loaded .22 caliber pistol was found in the place where Garrison had been reaching.

People v. Alders

AI Brief

HALVONIK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief