People v. Henderson, D008371
| Decision Date | 05 June 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. D008371,D008371 |
| Citation | 270 Cal.Rptr. 248,220 Cal.App.3d 1632 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 59 USLW 2016 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Ray HENDERSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Harley D. Mayfield, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lilia E. Garcia and Esteban Hernandez, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Michael Ray Henderson appeals from his judgment of conviction entered after the court denied his pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 and he pleaded guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine (meth) (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379.6(a)). 1 We have determined the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. While the court properly concluded the police had consent to enter the premises here to find a clandestine meth laboratory, it prematurely denied the motion without analyzing the legality and effect of video surveillance. We thus reverse the legality and effect of video surveillance. We thus reverse and remand the matter for further consideration of the suppression issue.
At the end of June 1987, Larry Joseph Hake was approached by his ex-brother-in-law, Charles Allen Bub, about using Hake's Palm Springs condominium (condo) to manufacture some meth. Bub did not know Hake had been working periodically over the previous two years for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) as an informant infiltrating illegal drug laboratory rings. Bub indicated he would need the condo for only three or four days and, in exchange, would give Hake some of the meth he produced. He explained Palm Springs was a good location for a lab because there were too many arrests occurring in San Diego.
Hake had full use of the Palm Springs residence as part of his compensation as vice-president of the Grace Corporation, which actually owned the condo. Because he was also housesitting his employer's residence in Rancho Mirage that summer, he maintained both residences at the same time, keeping some of his personal effects and clothing at each place.
Hake expressed interest in the plan, and the two arranged to meet at the El Sombrero Restaurant in San Diego on July 18 to discuss further details. Before this meeting In furtherance of the plan, on August 11, Bub telephoned Hake and asked him to pick up some hydrotic acid, one of the three ingredients needed for producing meth, at a house in Chula Vista and transport it to the condo. Because he had recently been arrested on other drug charges, Bub wanted Hake to transport the chemicals as a precaution from being stopped for possession of meth chemicals in his car. Hake agreed. Before taking the acid to Palm Springs, Hake took it to DEA agents so they could examine, mark and photograph it.
Hake contacted the DEA regarding Bub's offer, and agreed to keep the DEA advised of all developments. At that time, the DEA also placed an electronic transmitting device on Hake for the anticipated meeting with Bub. Unfortunately, the tape recording made at the meeting was undecipherable.
A few days later, Hake gave DEA agents permission to set up hidden videotape equipment in the condo to allow them to surveil Bub's planned clandestine meth lab. The agents did not obtain a search warrant for this surveillance because they believed Hake lived in the condo and had authority to consent to their entry into the condo for purposes of installing the equipment. Although they knew of Hake's housesitting arrangement, they had noticed Hake's personal effects, clothing, and documents in the condo and that he used his own keys to unlock the door of the condo.
With Hake's permission, they placed two cameras in the condo--one upstairs and one downstairs--and set up the viewing monitors in a nearby condominium they rented within the same complex. Since the equipment could be turned on and off from a remote location, the audio transmitters were used only when Hake was inside the condo. No other video surveillance equipment was placed outside of the condo.
On August 21, Bub again telephoned Hake, asking him to pick up the other two chemicals necessary to manufacture meth, ephedrine and red phosphorus, and transport them to the condo. This time, Hake was to meet Bub at a Taco Bell in El Cajon to pick up the chemicals. When Hake arrived there, he met Henderson for the first time. Henderson explained Bub would be a little late for the meeting and left. When Bub arrived, he gave Hake two buckets of chemicals, which Hake again showed to DEA agents before transporting them to Palm Springs.
Thereafter, on August 24, Henderson left a message on Hake's telephone answering machine at the Rancho Mirage house, saying he and Bub would be coming to Palm Springs in a few days. That evening, Henderson and Bub arrived at the Rancho Mirage residence and Hake gave Henderson a set of keys to the condo. Although he retained a set of keys to the condo, Hake told Bub he and Henderson would have free access to the condo.
Later, Hake returned to the condo several times to "pick up some of his things." Although Bub had never told him not to disturb him and Henderson there, Hake telephoned and rang the doorbell before entering the condo when they were present. While at the condo he saw Bub setting up what appeared to be a meth lab, although it was not fully operational at the time.
On the morning of August 25, Bub and Henderson again came to the Rancho Mirage house, this time to tell Hake "everything was all right" and to borrow a white bowl for mixing chemicals.
That same day DEA agents began a 24-hour watch over the activities in the condo through the video monitors. The upstairs monitor showed Bub and Henderson tending what appeared to be an operational meth lab in the upstairs bathroom. Because the camera was placed at a vantage point outside the bathroom door, the view of the lab was obstructed when either Bub or Henderson entered the bathroom/lab.
Unobstructed, the agents saw Bub wearing goggles and rubber gloves, changing kitty litter in a trash container, getting burned, and writing notations in a notebook. They also saw Henderson wearing a face mask, and both him and Bub watching over equipment set up in the bathroom. It The next morning, August 26, at about 6:10 a.m., the DEA agents went to the condo accompanied by Hake. Consenting to their entry, Hake unlocked the door to the condo. The agents then entered without any "knock and notice" because they feared the explosive nature of the lab and chemicals. They arrested Bub downstairs and Henderson upstairs in the laboratory. The agents also seized the actively cooking lab, some finished meth, and chemicals for producing the meth.
appeared to the agents the men were following a recipe.
Henderson was charged along with Bub and Susan Margaret Schultz in a four-count information based on drug crimes arising out of two separate incidents. Henderson was charged in count 3 with manufacturing meth (§ 11379.6(a)) and in count 4 with conspiring to manufacture that drug based on 12 overt acts spanning a period from July 18 to August 25, 1987, concerning the incident at the condo (§ 11379.6(a); Pen.Code, § 182 sub. 1). Schultz was charged in counts 1 and 2, which were totally unrelated to the charges against Henderson, and Bub was charged in all four counts.
Henderson then filed a separate motion to sever his trial from that of Bub and Shultz and also joined in their motions to sever, to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, to dismiss, both non-statutorily and under Penal Code section 995, for further discovery, and to exclude evidence. 2 The parties stipulated the preliminary hearing transcript could be received into evidence for purposes of the motions.
The trial court found Henderson had no standing to challenge the search of another residence involving Bub and Schultz, and denied the motion to suppress the evidence found in the condo on grounds the entry into that building was consensual and Bub and Henderson did not possess an exclusive license to use the premises. The court further found there was no statutory basis to exclude the videotape evidence. The court then granted Henderson's motion to sever his trial from the other defendants and denied the other motions.
Henderson subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of manufacturing meth in exchange for dismissal of the conspiracy charge and the prosecution's agreement not to oppose a recommendation of local time.
After considering the probation report, the court placed Henderson on three years formal probation, conditioned upon, among other things, serving one year in county jail. Henderson stated he was going to file an appeal and requested the court stay execution of his sentence. The court denied the request and Henderson has timely appealed.
Preliminarily, we note both Henderson and the Attorney General devote considerable discussion in their appellate briefs to the issue of Henderson's standing to challenge the warrantless search of the condo. Both point to the court minutes where the court found Henderson without standing to argue their respective positions. However, the court's comments rejecting Henderson's standing for the suppression motion pertained only to the search warrant entry into the house in the separate incident involving counts 1 and 2. The court did not address Henderson's standing regarding his objection to the admission of the evidence for counts 3 and 4.
Nor did the People raise the issue of Henderson's standing to bring the motion to suppress as to those counts at the time of the hearing. The People merely argued the justification of the search of the condo stood or fell on the issue of the consent exception. Failure to raise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ayala
...134, 145, 279 Cal.Rptr. 901; People v. Thompson (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 923, 933, 270 Cal.Rptr. 863; People v. Henderson (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1632, 1644, 270 Cal.Rptr. 248; People v. Workman (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 687, 695, 257 Cal.Rptr. 753; People v. Dasilva (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 43, 48-49,......
-
People v. LeBlanc
...exigent circumstances contentions of the prosecution and make appropriate findings on those subjects. In People v. Henderson (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1632, 1642-1643, 270 Cal.Rptr. 248, the defendant, after pleading guilty, challenged the trial judge's findings on a legal issue in connection w......
-
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Assn. v. County of Sacramento
...becomes whether the privacy expectation was reasonable in relation to the particular governmental conduct." (People v. Henderson (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1632, 1644, 270 Cal.Rptr. 248.) "Videotaping is a form of conduct which, if used by law enforcement to intrude on the reasonable and justifi......
-
Oziel v. Superior Court
...vital interests in law enforcement; such a search is generally "reasonable" in the Amendment's terms.' " (People v. Henderson (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1632, 1650, fn. 7, 270 Cal.Rptr. 248.) It is unclear from our record how the instant videotaping advanced the community's interest in law ...
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Henderson, 107 Cal. App. 4th 769, 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 255 (4th Dist. 2003)—Ch. 1, §4.13.1(2)(a)[2][a] People v. Henderson, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1632, 270 Cal. Rptr. 248 (4th Dist. 1990)—Ch. 5-A, §5.1.3(1)(a) People v. Hendricks, 43 Cal. 3d 584, 238 Cal. Rptr. 66, 737 P.2d 1350 (1987)—Ch......
-
Chapter 5 - §5. Procedure for excluding evidence
...over all the areas, the defendant had standing to challenge the search of the residence. People v. Henderson (4th Dist.1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1632, 1641-42. But see Carter, 525 U.S. at 91 (no standing when Ds were not overnight guests, were present for commercial transaction, were present for......