SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

Examples:
“Thus a man’s home is, for most purposes, a place where he
expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he
exposes to the ‘plain view’ of outsiders are not ‘protected’ because
no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. . . .
(C)onversations in the open would not be protected against being
overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances
would be unreasonable.” (Id., at p. 361 [19 L.Ed.2 nd at p. 588];
concurring opinion.)
An officer standing in the common areas of an apartment complex,
observing contraband though a person’s uncovered windows, is not
illegal. (People v. Superior Court [Reilly] (1975) 53 Cal.App.3 rd
40, 50.)
But, trespassing at the side of a house where the public is
not impliedly invited, at least when investigating a minor
offense (i.e., loud music) and no attempt is first made to
contact the resident by knocking at the front door, makes
the officers’ observations into the defendant’s uncovered
windows illegal. (People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4 th
824.)
But see the dissent in Camacho, at pp. 843-844,
listing a considerable number of federal circuit
court decisions [not binding upon the state courts]
which have ruled to the contrary in similar
circumstances.
Walking around to the back of the defendant’s house to
knock, while looking for an armed parolee-at-large, was
held to be lawful, differentiating the rule of Camacho on
the facts and the relative seriousness of the crimes
involved. The fact that the officer was “trespassing” held
not to be significant when considering the
“reasonableness” of the officer’s actions. (People v.
Manderscheid (2002) 99 Cal.App.4 th 355.)
Walking all the way around a house in an attempt to locate
an occupant was lawful, and the plain sight observations
made while doing so were therefore admissible. (United
States v. Hammett (9 th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3 rd 1054.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
414