People v. James

California Court of Appeal Mar 30, 1990 No. No. F011355Published

Before: Ardaiz

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a single search warrant authorizes only one search, but that whether police activity constitutes a single continuous search or multiple searches is a question of fact for the trial court. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, finding substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the officers' activities constituted a single, continuous, and reasonable search.

Issues

Whether the police conducted a second, impermissible search under a single warrant.
Whether the duration of the search was so excessive as to be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We acknowledge the validity of the general rule that a single search warrant authorizes but a single search.”

“In deciding that a single warrant allows only one search, we must recognize it is sometimes unclear whether the activities of the authorities constituted a single search or multiple searches.”

“The reasonableness of the duration [of a search] must be determined by the circumstances of each case.”

Opinion

ARDAIZ, Acting P. J. An information filed November 3, 1987, charged appellants Richard Wayne James and Laurie Charlton with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and possession of dangerous fireworks (Health & Saf. Code, § 12677). Appellants pleaded not guilty.

Appellants brought motions to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The trial court, after a hearing, denied the motions upon all bases claimed by appellants.

On September 14, 1988, both appellants pleaded guilty; appellant James pleaded guilty to violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359; appellant Charlton pleaded guilty to violation of Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (c), possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. Appellant James was sentenced to 180 days in jail and 180 days of house [417]arrest; he was fined $2,500, in addition to a $500 restitution fine. Appellant Charlton was sentenced to 10 days in jail and 110 days of house arrest; she was fined a total of $300.

Appellants filed timely notices of appeal and both were allowed their liberty pursuant to appeal bonds.

Facts

On February 17, 1987, a search warrant issued commanding the authorities to search a residence located at 805 Lake Street in Chowchilla. The affidavit supporting the request for the search warrant revealed that the children of appellant James, who resided at the house, stayed at the residence while on parental visits. The children reported seeing drugs both used and sold on the premises. The warrant issued pursuant to this affidavit authorized a search of the house, toolshed and other areas directly related to the residence and any vehicles located on the premises; the warrant authorized seizure of marijuana, cocaine, and paraphernalia associated with the use and/or packaging of the drugs and articles of personal property tending to establish the identities of those having dominion and control of the premises, including keys.

The authorities first served the warrant on February 18, 1987, at approximately 11 a.m.; they remained on the property until almost 3:30 p.m. Appellant Charlton, also a resident, was at home at the time the warrant was executed. Initially, anywhere from four to seven officers participated in the execution of the search warrant. Marijuana was found inside the residence. Appellant Charlton was arrested and transported to jail at approximately 12:15 p.m. At that time she was given an inventory of items seized. (See Pen. Code, § 1535.)

People v. James

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief