People v. Medina

• Citation: 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 413,158 Cal.App.4th 1571
• Decision Date: 27 December 2007
• Docket Number: No. F051748.,F051748.
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Perez MEDINA, Jr., Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

70 Cal.Rptr.3d 413

158 Cal.App.4th 1571

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. John Perez MEDINA, Jr., Defendant and Respondent.

No. F051748.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District.

December 27, 2007.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, John G. McLean and Doris A. Calandra, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Richard J. Krech, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Oakland, for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

KANE, J.

The trial court granted defendant John Perez Medina, Jr.'s motion to suppress evidence discovered during a suspicionless probation search of his residence conducted solely based on defendant's probation search condition. The People appeal. We will reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

A Bakersfield police officer stopped defendant's vehicle due to an inoperable taillight. Defendant pulled into the driveway of his house and stopped. Defendant told the officer it was his house. The officer asked defendant for his identification and conducted a records check that showed defendant was on felony probation subject to search for narcotics and paraphernalia. The officer searched defendant and his car, but found no contraband. The officer then asked defendant for his house keys, which defendant provided. The officer rang the doorbell and defendant's father answered the door. The officer told him he was there to conduct a probation search on defendant. The father said he understood and he directed the officer to defendant's room. Based solely on the search condition of defendant's probation, the officer searched defendant's room and found a small amount of methamphetamine on a dresser.

The Kern County District Attorney charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 1), possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen.Code, § 12316, subd. (b)(1); count 2),¹ and operation of a vehicle with an inoperable rear taillight (Veh.Code, § 24600; count 3).

Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5), which the court granted. The court dismissed the case on its own motion.

DISCUSSION

In granting defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court cited U.S. v. Knights (2001) 534 U.S. 112, 122 S.Ct. 587, 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (Knights) and concluded "[t]here existed no facts which would suggest a search was necessary or reasonable." (Capitalization omitted.) The People argue Knights is inapplicable and the law in California continues to permit suspicionless searches of probationers. Although defendant relied on Knights at the suppression hearing, he now acknowledges it does not answer the question presented here. Instead, he contends the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The People reply, and we agree, that defendant fails to recognize that the basis for the validity of a probation search is consent, not reasonableness under a general Fourth Amendment analysis.

When we review a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, we defer to the court's factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 327, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 401, 39 P.3d 432.) Whether a search is constitutionally reasonable, however, is a legal question upon which we exercise our independent judgment. (Ibid.)

A residence search conducted without a warrant is presumed unreasonable unless it comes within an exception to the warrant requirement. (Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576.) One such exception is the consent to search. (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973) 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854; People v. Bravo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 600, 609, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336 (Bravo); People v. Mason (1971) 5 Cal.3d 759, 765, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630, disapproved on another ground in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. 1, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.) In California, probationers consent in advance, as a condition of their probation, to warrantless searches and seizures in exchange for the opportunity to avoid serving a state prison term. (Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 608, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336; People v. Mason, supra, at pp. 764-766, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630.) Warrantless searches of probationers are justified because they aid in deterring further offenses by the probationer and in monitoring compliance with the terms of probation. (People v. Mason, supra, at pp. 763-764, 97 Cal.Rptr. 302, 488 P.2d 630; see Bravo, supra, at p. 610, 238 Cal. Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336.) "By allowing close supervision of probationers, probation search conditions serve to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism while helping to protect the community from potential harm by probationers. [Citation.]" (People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th 789, 795, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914, 3 P.3d 311.)

A probationer's consent is considered "a complete waiver of that probationer's Fourth Amendment rights, save only his right to object to harassment or searches conducted in an unreasonable manner. [Citation.]" (Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 607, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336.) `"[A] probationer who has been granted the privilege of probation on condition that he submit at any time to a warrantless search may have no reasonable expectation of traditional Fourth Amendment protection.' [Citation.] Consequently, 'when [a] defendant in order to obtain probation specifically agree[s] to permit at any time a warrantless search of his person, car and house, he voluntarily waive[s] whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)² Accordingly, the California Supreme Court has held that a search of a probationer pursuant to a search condition may be conducted without any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that such a search does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (Id. at pp. 607-609, 611, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336 [probation search pursuant to search condition does not require reasonable suspicion].)³

As already mentioned, there are some limitations on the probation search. First, "[a] waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation does not permit searches undertaken for harassment or searches for arbitrary or capricious reasons." (Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 610, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336.) A search is arbitrary and capricious when the motivation for it is unrelated to rehabilitative, reformative or legitimate law enforcement purposes, or when it is motivated by personal animosity toward the probationer. It must be reasonably related to the purposes of probation. (People v. Robles, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 797, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 914, 3 P.3d 311; Bravo, supra, at pp. 610-611, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336.) In addition, a search could become unconstitutionally unreasonable if conducted too often or at an unreasonable hour, or if unreasonably prolonged, or if conducted for other reasons establishing arbitrary or oppressive conduct by the searching officer. (See People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 753-754, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 734, 968 P.2d 445.) Finally, the officer must be aware of the search condition before conducting the search; after-acquired knowledge will not justify the search. (See People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 335, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630, 73 P.3d 496 [suspicionless parole' search of residence not justified by search condition of which officer was unaware].)

In summary, under California law, a search conducted pursuant to a known probation search condition, even if conducted without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the search is not undertaken for harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons or in an unreasonable manner. (Bravo, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 610, 238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336.)

The trial court in this case relied not on California law, but on Knights, a United States Supreme Court case, which, as we will explain, does not resolve the issue in this case.

In Knights, the probationer and a friend were suspected of committing arson and vandalizing Pacific Gas & Electric (PG & E) property. An officer saw the probationer's friend leaving the probationer's apartment around 3:00 a.m. with what appeared to be pipe bombs. When the officer looked in the back of the friend's truck he saw PG & E padlocks and various explosive materials. Based on his observations, the officer searched the probationer's apartment pursuant to a probation search condition. (Knights, supra, 534 U.S. at pp. 114-115, 122 S.Ct. 587.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was invalid because it was conducted for investigatory rather than probationary purposes. (Id. at p. 116, 122 S.Ct. 587.) The Supreme Court rejected this distinction, noting that nothing in the probationer's search condition suggested it was confined to searches bearing upon probationary status. (Ibid.) In analyzing the search, the court applied a general Fourth Amendment analysis, rather than a consent or special needs rationale. The court unanimously concluded that the probationer's acceptance of a clear and unambiguous search condition "significantly diminished [the probationer's] reasonable expectation of privacy" (id. at p. 120, 122 S.Ct. 587), and that the warrantless search of the probationer's apartment, based on both a probation search condition and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (id. at p. 122, 122 S.Ct. 587).

In light of this conclusion, the Knights court expressly declined to reach the issue whether "acceptance of the search condition constituted consent in the Schneckloth sense of a complete waiver of his Fourth Amendment rights." (Knights, supra, 534 U.S. at p. 118, 122 S.Ct. 587.) Moreover, the court expressly declined to...