People v. Russell

Opinion

HASTINGS, J. Gary Russell appeals from his jury conviction of possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and possession of [188]marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). His sole contention of error involves the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized by the police pursuant to their search warrant. For reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Facts

On January 15, 1985, police officer Rodney Uyeda (Uyeda) obtained a search warrant for defendant’s premises in Monrovia, California. The warrant authorized a search of the premises and defendant for “amphetamine and methamp[h]etamine, and narcotic related paraphernalia, . . .”

Approximately one week later, on January 23, Uyeda and approximately 12 other officers executed the warrant. In so doing, the officers knocked on the front door of the residence and detained defendant along with his mother, father and daughter.

Uyeda then had fellow officer Miglia take the latter’s narcotics detection dog (Dandy) through the house. Dandy, who is trained to detect only heroin, cocaine and marijuana, was drawn to a set of bedroom drawers. A search of the drawers uncovered 10 grams of cocaine and 73.5 grams of marijuana. The officers also uncovered drug related paraphernalia, including assorted paper bindles, baggies, screens, strainers, jars labeled “mannitol” and “sorbitol,” a funnel, a spoon, a scale and a small-caliber revolver. Further, the officers found several items of defendant’s personalty (diplomas, mail, books, clothing) linking him with the contraband.

In his defense, defendant’s mother (Ivy), who also lived at the residence, claimed the cocaine belonged to her. She asserted the marijuana was left by other parties who had stayed at the house. Ivy also claimed she sold cocaine to support her granddaughter and denied stating she had no knowledge of the drugs found by the police.

Discussion

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) because the search warrant for amphetamine and methamphetamine was used as a pretext to search for cocaine. The facts and the record do not necessarily support this contention. Instead, it appears that the exclusion of cocaine from the search warrant was probably inadvertent.