People v. Bizieff CA5

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 2015 No. F068555Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the protective sweep of the defendant's residence was lawful because the officers possessed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the premises harbored a dangerous person who posed a threat to their safety.

Issues

Whether the warrantless protective sweep of the defendant's residence violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the residence harbored a dangerous person.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The totality of the circumstances gave the deputies reasonable suspicion to believe that the residence harbored one or more dangerous persons who might threaten their safety.”

“The facts known to the deputies before the protective sweep began provided a particularized and objective basis to reasonably suspect that the loft area harbored a person who could pose a threat to officer safety.”

Filed 7/1/15 P. v. Bizieff CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068555 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF149976A) v.

ANASTASIA BIZIEFF, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Appellant Anastasia N. Bizieff was charged with three felonies: possession of a loaded firearm while under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (e)); possession of a billy, blackjack, etc. (Pen. Code, § 22210); and possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). Appellant was also charged with two misdemeanors: being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)); and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia (former Health & Saf. Code, § 11364.1). It was further alleged that the felonies were committed while appellant was released from custody for a different, pending felony case. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1.) Appellant moved to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a “protective sweep” search, alleging that a warrantless search of her residence did not meet any exception under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion. On November 14, 2013, appellant pled no contest to the charges for possession of the billy club and possession of a controlled substance in exchange for probation and one year in county jail. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. On December 12, 2013, imposition of sentence was suspended and probation was granted for a term of three years. Appellant received 248 days for time served and statutory credit. The court also imposed various fines. On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search because there was insufficient justification for the protective sweep. She argues that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and that the trial court’s denial of her motion must be reversed. We reject her contention and affirm.

People v. Bizieff CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief