People v. White

California Court of Appeal Mar 14, 1969 No. Crim. 3258Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence seized during a search of a parolee's apartment was admissible because the search was sufficiently attenuated from an earlier, conceded illegal entry. The subsequent search was conducted after officers independently contacted the parolee outside the premises and re-entered with him, meaning the evidence was not an exploitation of the initial illegality.

Issues

Whether the initial unannounced entry into the parolee's apartment rendered the subsequent search and seizure of narcotics inadmissible.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence seized in the course of these investigative procedures after Larkworthy and Myrann left the illegally entered apartment was sufficiently removed from the original illegality to remove that taint.”

“An illegal entry does not necessarily render the entered premises immune to any later search. The question is whether the search is so connected with the illegal entry it constitutes an “exploitation of that illegality.””

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Columbus White, Jr., pleaded guilty to possessing a narcotic (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) after the court denied his motion to suppress the heroin evidence found in a search of his dwelling. He appeals the judgment of conviction entered on his guilty plea, thus limiting the appellate issue to reviewing the validity of the search and seizure. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).)

White was a parolee. John Larkworthy, White’s parole officer was informed White possessed narcotics. Larkworthy would not disclose the source of his information. Larkworthy requested police assistance to search White’s apartment. Larkworthy and another parole agent accompanied by a state narcotics agent and two policemen went to White’s second story apartment. They entered an open door and found four people inside but not White. Looking out a window, Lark-worthy saw White standing next to a parked car on the street below.

Larkworthy and Police Officer Myrann went downstairs to the street where Larkworthy asked White to accompany them back up to the apartment. White did so, they re-entered the apartment and went into the bathroom where a search revealed a container of heroin and narcotic paraphernalia. The officers did not have a search or arrest warrant.

The officers arrested White who resisted, was subdued and taken into custody. (A charge of battery on a police officer was dismissed on the People’s motion when White pleaded guilty to possessing narcotics.)

The sole contention on appeal is the officers’ initial éntry into the apartment was illegal because it was unannounced (Pen. Code, § 844) and the later search and seizure was tainted by that illegality making the heroin evidence inadmissible.

Because White was on parole, his parole officer was entitled to search his apartment without a search warrant, consent or probable cause to arrest him. To conduct the search, the parole officer may have the assistance of ordinary peace officers

(People

Quilon,

245 Cal.App.2d 624, 627 [54

[682]

Cal.Rptr. 294]). A parole officer seeking to search a parolee’s residence is not excused from complying with the requirement he demand admittance and explain the purpose for which admittance is desired. (Pen. Code, § 844;

People v. White

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief