30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Osife, supra, reaffirming the rule of New York v. Belton (1981)<br />

453 U.S. 454, 460 [69 L.Ed.2 nd 768, 775], defendant arguing that a<br />

minority, concurring opinion in Thornton to this effect should be<br />

accepted as a new rule.)<br />

With Probable Cause: Search with Probable Cause to believe there is<br />

contrab<strong>and</strong> or other seizable items in a vehicle:<br />

General Rule: If police officers have probable cause to search a car, they<br />

may make a warrantless search anywhere a warrant could have authorized.<br />

(Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996) 518 U.S. 938 [135 L.Ed.2 nd 89];<br />

Maryl<strong>and</strong> v. Dyson (1999) 527 U.S. 465 [144 L.Ed.2 nd 442]; People v.<br />

Superior Court [Nasmeh] (2007) 151 Cal.App.4 th 85, 100-102; United<br />

States v. Davis (9 th Cir. 2008) 530 F.3 rd 1069, 1084; United States v.<br />

Noster (9 th Cir. 2009) 590 F.3 rd 624, 633-634; People v. Xinos (2011) 192<br />

Cal.App.4 th 637, 653-659.)<br />

Warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle justified by exigent<br />

circumstances (looking for a missing eight-year-old girl) <strong>and</strong><br />

probable cause (blood seen in the vehicle <strong>and</strong> a cord hanging out of<br />

the trunk). (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4 th 395, 468-469.)<br />

This includes any compartments <strong>and</strong> containers in the vehicle;<br />

assuming the item for which there is probable cause for which to<br />

search would reasonably be expected to be in the container<br />

searched. (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798 [72 L.Ed.2 nd<br />

572]; People v. Chavers (1983) 33 Cal.3 rd 462, 466-467.)<br />

Even if the container searched does not belong to the defendant, it<br />

is subject to search. (Wyoming v. Houghton (1999) 526 US. 295<br />

[143 L.Ed.2 nd 408]: Where defendant was a passenger in the<br />

vehicle, the search of defendant’s purse which was left in the car<br />

when the passengers were ordered out is okay.)<br />

Note People v. Mitchell (1995) 36 Cal.App.4 th 672; People<br />

v. Prance (1991) 226 Cal.App.3 rd 1525, upholding the<br />

search of purses belonging to passengers under the<br />

“incident to arrest” theory (above).<br />

However, a search of the female defendant’s purse left in<br />

the car when an officer is conducting a parole search of a<br />

male parolee, is illegal absent a reasonable suspicion to<br />

believe that the parolee had joint access, possession or<br />

control over the purse. (People v. Baker (2008) 164<br />

Cal.App.4th 1152.)<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

517

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!