Skip to content
Name: People v. Ferguson
Case #: C036911
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/18/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 1/16/02. Depublished.

A police officer who stopped appellant’s vehicle for minor violations was advised by the radio dispatcher that appellant was on probation for a drug violation. The officer, who knew from experience that people on probation for drug offenses generally had search conditions, conducted a search, finding methamphetamine. Later, it was discovered that appellant was not actually on probation at the time of the search; that a clerical error had resulted following appellant’s early termination from probation. The appellate court here affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. The exclusionary rule was inapplicable because the officer searched…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Luera
Case #: B134479
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 02/24/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant's conviction under Penal Code section 311.11 is not arbitrary and does not violate due process principles. The rating by the Motion Picture Association of America does not immunize a person making or distributing child pornography illegal. The trial court properly denied appellant's motion to disclose the identity of the informant because the showing here of a reasonable possibility that the informant could give evidence which might result in appellant's exoneration was sheer unreasonable speculation. The possibility that the informant had downloaded the child pornography on appellant's computer was rebutted by appellant's own admission to the officer…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lim
Case #: C034940
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/03/2001
Subsequent History: Review denied 4/11/01

The trial court erred in granting the defendant's suppression motion. Based on the totality of the affidavit in support of the warrant, even if it failed to establish probable cause, it was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that it would be entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe that such cause existed. Accordingly, United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, applies and the search executed under the authority of the warrant did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The appellate court explicitly found the trial court erred in finding that Leon did not apply…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Cannon
Case #: 00-10400
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/05/2001
Subsequent History: Cert. denied 2/19/02

Cannon owned the property at 1250 Hemlock Street. The officer who prepared the affidavit described it as a single family dwelling and did not mention a second structure at that address (the "rear building")which the officer assumed was a garage. The warrant application did not specify the putative garage as a place to be searched for marijuana based on information received from an informant about Cannon. In fact the rear building had been converted from a garage into a guest house, and was rented to a tenant, Cook. It consisted of three separate areas, each…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Hammett
Case #: 00-10065
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/10/2001
Subsequent History: Cert. denied 10/1/01

The search warrant here was held to be valid, and the suppression motion have been properly denied. There was no evidence in the record to suggest that the misstatement in the warrant affidavit was made intentionally or recklessly. Moreover, even if the misstatement was redacted, the affidavit still contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable…

View Full Summary
Name: Humphrey v. Superior Court
Case #: B149998
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 08/22/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/28/01

Editor’s note: review granted on this case. Defendant was charged with misdemeanor child molest and sexual battery against two 8-year-old girls. The People obtained a search warrant to test his blood for the HIV virus under Penal Code section 1524.1, which permits the warrant to issue when there is probable cause to believe listed bodily fluids have been transferred from the accused to the complaining witness. The girls’ mother signed a declaration based on information and belief which appeared to be based on hearsay statements of police officers who interviewed the children, police reports, and medical experts. The…

View Full Summary