People v. McCabe
| Decision Date | 06 June 1983 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Catherine Ann McCABE, Defendant and Appellant. A017033. |
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, William D. Stein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Eugene Kaster, Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Carmen J. Newby, Santa Clara, for defendant and appellant.
*
Catherine McCabe was charged with possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351) based on cocaine the police found in her purse. Appellant pleaded not guilty. After her motion to suppress evidence was denied, she pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of possession of cocaine. (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350.) The court placed her on probation on the condition that she serve 12 days in the county jail and that she pay a $1,000 fine. On appeal, the issue is whether the police lawfully seized the cocaine from appellant's purse where they searched the purse under the authority of a search warrant providing for the search of a residence where appellant was visiting at the time of the search.
Frank Luis, Brennan Pang, and Sarah Bush shared a house at 838 Rorke Way in Palo Alto. Luis and Pang sold small amounts of cocaine to an undercover police officer at the residence. The police obtained a search warrant providing for the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and narcotics paraphernalia on the premises of 838 Rorke Way.
When the police arrived at the house to execute the search warrant, the officer in charge demanded entry, waited 20 to 25 seconds and entered. Appellant, who was not a resident at 838 Rorke Way, was on the kitchen floor when the police entered. Bush was found hiding in the shower. Pang was found in the living room. The police found appellant's purse on a table in the living room.
One of the police officers opened appellant's purse and found her driver's license and bindles of cocaine. The police also found quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and drug-related paraphernalia in the bedrooms of the residents.
Appellant contends that the search of her purse was unlawful because the police may not rely on a search warrant to search the personal effects of a visitor who happens to be present on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Respondent contends that the search warrant authorized the search of the purse because the police may rely on a search warrant to search anywhere that the contraband which is the object of the search warrant might be concealed.
During the execution of a search warrant for fixed premises, the police may lawfully search the personal effects of a resident of the premises subject to search where the personal effects are plausible repositories of contraband. (People v. Saam (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 789, 794, 165 Cal.Rptr. 256.) Today we hold that, during the execution of a search warrant, the police may, under specified conditions, lawfully search the personal effects of non-residents found on the premises subject to search.
The police may ordinarily assume that all personal property which they find while executing a search warrant is the property of a resident of the premises subject to search. (State v. Nabarro (Haw.1974) 55 Haw. 583, 525 P.2d 573, 577.) Thus, the police may search any personal property of a visitor which might serve as a plausible repository of the contraband which is the object of the search where they have no knowledge of the fact that the item searched is the personal property of a visitor. (Id.) If the police have actual knowledge that the property which is searched belongs to a non-resident, however, they may not, as a general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...of special protection, and the police could have believed the purse was hers. See Waters , 924 P.2d at 440 ; People v. McCabe , 144 Cal.App.3d 827, 192 Cal.Rptr. 635, 637 (1983). The State asserts that without notice of actual or constructive possession, the police were free to search the b......
-
State v. Andrews
...contraband within the personal effects of the non-resident immediately prior to" the execution of the warrant. People v. McCabe, 144 Cal.App.3d 827, 192 Cal.Rptr. 635, 637 (1983). In stark contrast to the checklist of criteria that must be satisfied pursuant to the prodigy of the relationsh......
-
Houghton v. State, 96-99
...notice that the purse belonged to female visitor rather than female identified in warrant, search upheld); People v. McCabe, 144 Cal.App.3d 827, 192 Cal.Rptr. 635, 636-37 (1983); Wright v. State, 221 Ga.App. 559, 472 S.E.2d 128, 129 (1996) (jacket could have belonged to anyone in home, sear......
-
State v. Thomas
..."expectation of privacy" test may be too restrictive for law enforcement to reasonably implement. In the case of People v. McCabe, 144 Cal.App.3d 827, 192 Cal.Rptr. 635 (1983), police obtained a search warrant providing for the seizure of cocaine and other drugs at a premises shared by thre......