P. v. Wolfe CA1/4

Filed 5/22/13 P. v. Wolfe CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A135878 v. BRADLEY ALLEN WOLFE, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR612853) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Bradley Allen Wolfe pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of an assault weapon (former Pen. Code, § 12280, subd. (b))1 after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his bedroom. On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 16, 2010, Sonoma County deputy sheriffs came across a locked bedroom while performing a parole search of the Rohnert Park home of appellant’s brother, Steven Wolfe. 2 As described in more detail below, the officers entered the room and did a protective sweep. Although no one was in the room at the time, the officers saw documents suggesting that the room was inhabited by Bradley. After learning that

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Since the brothers share the same surname, they will be identified solely by their first names throughout the remainder of this opinion.

1

Bradley was on probation, the officers searched the room and found weapons and ammunition. The issues in this appeal arise out of the legality of the officers’ entry into the bedroom. The decision to search Steven’s house was made earlier in the day by Deputy Sheriff Marcus Holton who had received information that Steven possibly had been watching the home of a police chief in a nearby town. Steven had a history of assaulting law enforcement personnel and was on parole for threatening a police officer (§ 69). Holton assembled a search team, consisting of him and five other officers, supported by a sheriff’s helicopter. When the search began, the officers’ first objective was to secure the single-story residence by performing a protective sweep. The officers encountered no one and saw nothing unusual, except they discovered a locked bedroom door. They knocked on the door, but no one responded. An officer attempted to look into the room through an outside window, but the blinds were shut. The locked door gave Holton a heightened concern for the officers’ safety. His concern was partly due to Steven’s history of violence against law enforcement officers, but it was also because Holton noticed a strong odor of “green” (as opposed to burnt) marijuana coming from the room, which raised the possibility that someone would have weapons to protect cash or drugs. In addition, officers searching other parts of the house had found a flare gun and pepper spray. Holton believed that a person in the bedroom could fire bullets through the door or walls or come out with a weapon. One of the officers was posted outside of the locked bedroom while others continued to search different parts of the house. At one point, Holton was told that Steven was at the Cotati Police Department and was claiming that the locked room was inhabited by his brother, Bradley. Holton had no other information from which he could determine whose bedroom it was, and he did not know where Bradley was at the time. The officers decided to enter the bedroom to make sure no one was hiding in it, and an officer kicked the door open. Holton estimated that they entered the bedroom approximately 15 to 20 minutes after completing the initial protective sweep of the house.