P. v. Meves CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2013 No. F065386Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding that the defendant was not within the curtilage of his home was supported by substantial evidence, and that the officers' approach and subsequent search were constitutionally reasonable.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant was not within the curtilage of his home.
Whether the officers' entry onto the property and subsequent search of the defendant violated the Fourth Amendment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s factual finding that the deputy was not within the curtilage was supported by substantial evidence.”

“We conclude the trial court’s factual finding that the area in which Meves was standing was outside the curtilage was supported by substantial evidence.”

“Clodt’s entry onto the property to speak to Meves was lawful and the resulting arrest, search, and seizure of the contraband were reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.”

Filed 6/20/13 P. v. Meves 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065386 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RF006314A) v.

ROCKY RENO MEVES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Colette M. Humphrey, Judge. Jonathan E. Berger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Raymond L. Brosterhous II, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Rocky Reno Meves contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Specifically, Meves asserts (1) the deputy sheriff was within the curtilage of his (Meves’s) home, which was constitutionally protected; (2) the deputy unreasonably was within the curtilage; and (3) the subsequent search and seizure was unconstitutional. The trial court’s factual finding that the deputy was not within the curtilage was supported by substantial evidence. Regardless, mere presence within the curtilage of a residence does not constitute an unlawful entry and unconstitutional search. The deputy reasonably was in the location from where he made his observations. We will affirm the trial court’s denial of the suppression motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On March 28, 2012, Kern County Deputy Sheriff Darrin Clodt was in the small mining town of Johannesburg in rural Kern County. Clodt was in a patrol car with his partner, Deputy Sheriff Ralph Parsons. Clodt and Parsons were headed to 406 Goler Road in Johannesburg to serve a no-bail warrant on Ralph Brisbon. Clodt had extensive previous training in the recognition of individuals who were under the influence of controlled substances. Goler Road is a dirt road and there are no dividing lines separating one property from another. When the deputies arrived at 406 Goler Road, Clodt looked to his right from the patrol car and saw Meves, who was standing about 20 yards from the patrol car. There was a house at the location. The area between the deputies and Meves was “desert type,” with no lawn or fence between the deputies and Meves. Parsons testified that when Meves was first approached by the deputies, Meves was standing about 15 feet west of the residence on the property. Clodt left the patrol car, crossed the desert-like area, and approached Meves, whom he knew from previous contacts. Clodt noticed Meves had his hand in his pocket, was shuffling back and forth, and was trembling. Meves spoke rapidly and was not able

P. v. Meves CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief