People v. Ovieda

• Citation: 7 Cal.5th 1034,446 P.3d 262,250 Cal.Rptr.3d 754
• Decision Date: 12 August 2019
• Docket Number: S247235
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie OVIEDA, Defendant and Appellant.

7 Cal.5th 1034

446 P.3d 262

250 Cal.Rptr.3d 754

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Willie OVIEDA, Defendant and Appellant.

S247235

Supreme Court of California.

August 12, 2019

Elizabeth K. Horowitz, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Peter Bibring and Ian M. Kysel for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Edward C. DuMont, State Solicitor General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Mongan, Deputy State Solicitor General, Kenneth C. Byrne, Andrew S. Pruitt and David Glassman, Deputy Attorneys General, and Geoffrey H. Wright, Associate Deputy State Solicitor General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Corrigan, J.

In People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 981 P.2d 928, the lead opinion of this court articulated a "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement for government entry into a private residence, suggesting that "circumstances short of a perceived emergency may justify a warrantless entry" into a home. ( Id . at p. 473, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 981 P.2d 928 (lead opn. of Brown, J.).) Under United States Supreme Court authority, a warrantless home entry is unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, like exigent circumstances, which includes the need to render emergency aid. We conclude that an entry for reasons short of a perceived emergency, or similar exigency, fails to satisfy the relevant constitutional standard. We disapprove the lead opinion in People v. Ray, supra, 21 Cal.4th 464, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 981 P.2d 928 to the extent it conflicts with the views expressed here.

I. BACKGROUND¹

On June 17, 2015, officers were dispatched to defendant’s home in Santa Barbara after family members reported he was suicidal and had access to a gun. Five officers responded and set up a perimeter. They learned defendant was inside with two friends, Trevor Case and his wife, Amber Woellert. Defendant’s family was not at the scene and his roommate was out of town. Officers were able to contact Case, who came out to speak with them.

Case related that the three had been in defendant’s room when defendant began talking about suicide, which he had attempted before. Defendant reached for a pistol near the bed, but Case and Woellert were able to disarm him. Defendant then tried to grab a gun from the bedroom closet and was again restrained. Woellert remained with defendant while Case collected the handgun, two rifles, and ammunition and put them in the garage.

Remaining with the officers, Case called Woellert. She emerged with defendant, who was placed in handcuffs and searched. Case was very emotional and so concerned about defendant that he had alerted defendant’s family members, prompting their call to police. Officers Corbett and Bruce entered the home to do a "protective sweep to secure the premises" and make sure there was no one else inside who might be armed, injured, or in need of aid.

Officer Corbett testified that, based on his experience, each situation is different and requires consideration of multiple possible factors, though "safety of persons is paramount." He and Bruce were "unsure if all parties were accounted for," did not have a clear picture of what had caused the situation, and "felt duty bound to secure the premises and make sure there were no people inside that were injured or in need of assistance."

The two officers entered with guns drawn because "[t]here was talk of multiple weapons in the house" and the situation was "emotional and dynamic." They moved slowly through the house, checking rooms and closets where people in need of help might be found. Corbett had no intent to search for criminal conduct and had "no reason to believe any other criminal activity was afoot."

After entry and during the sweep, Corbett noted "an overwhelmingly strong odor of marijuana" and numerous items related to "marijuana cultivation and concentrated cannabis production." He also saw ammunition, a gun case, scales, and a large industrial drying oven with ducts leading to the garage. On cross-examination, Corbett acknowledged that Case had said the guns had been taken away from defendant and that only he, Woellert, and defendant had been in the house. Case never said that any domestic violence was involved or that anyone else was inside. Corbett had no information that there were any other people in the home.

Officer Garcia also testified and largely confirmed Corbett’s testimony. Garcia spoke to Case once he came outside. Case was distraught and tearful during the conversation. Brought outside by Woellert, defendant was searched and handcuffed. He denied being suicidal or having any guns. The on-scene officers collectively decided to conduct a safety sweep. On cross-examination, Garcia conceded that officers had no "specific information that led [them] to believe somebody else was inside." They were told that defendant’s roommate was in Washington State. Case did not know if there were other guns in the house beside those he had taken to the garage.

More officers were called to the scene. No search warrant was ever obtained. Ultimately, large quantities of guns, ammunition, and drug-producing equipment were removed from the house and garage. The recovered weaponry included a submachine gun and a rifle with a long-range scope.

Defendant was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance, importing an assault weapon, and possessing a silencer and short-barreled rifle.² He moved to suppress the evidence found in his home. At the suppression hearing, neither officer testified that they had asked defendant’s permission to enter to check for others or that they questioned the veracity of Case and Woellert. They mentioned no noise or movement in the house or garage creating concern that others might be inside or that anything was amiss there. They were not asked what, if anything, they intended to do with defendant or whether he would have been allowed to return to the residence. They did not rely on that possibility to justify the need for the protective sweep. The prosecution based its case on the community caretaking exception, not on exigent circumstances. The court denied the motion. It accepted the officers’ testimony regarding "what they knew, what they were concerned about and what they didn’t know." The court reasoned the officers were not required to accept Case’s word that he had removed the firearms and noted they would be "subject to criticism" if something untoward had occurred because they did not conduct a sweep for others who might pose a danger or need assistance.

After pleading guilty to the manufacturing count and to possession of an assault weapon,³ defendant was placed on probation. A divided Court of Appeal upheld the search under the community caretaking exception. ( People v. Ovieda (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 614, 619-623, review granted Apr. 25, 2018, S247235.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Warrant Requirement and the Exigent Circumstances Exception

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. ( U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.) "In California, issues relating to the suppression of evidence derived from governmental searches and seizures are reviewed under federal constitutional standards." ( People v. Troyer (2011) 51 Cal.4th 599, 605, 120 Cal.Rptr.3d 770, 246 P.3d 901 ( Troyer ).) " ‘[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness." ’ " ( Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. 373, 381, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 ; People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1213, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189.) "[T]he ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’ " ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 585, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 ( Payton ); see People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909, 919, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 640, 288 P.3d 1259.) "[I]t is a cardinal principle that ‘searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.’ " ( Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 437 U.S. 385, 390, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 ( Mincey ); see Riley , at p. 382, 134 S.Ct. 2473.) "The burden is on the People to establish an exception applies." ( Macabeo , at p. 1213, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189.) " ‘ " ‘We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.’ " ’ " ( Id . at p. 1212, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 384 P.3d 1189.)

" ‘A long-recognized exception to the warrant requirement exists when "exigent circumstances" make necessary the conduct of a warrantless search.’ " ( People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 465, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 672, 107 P.3d 790.) The term "exigent circumstances" describes " ‘ "an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the claim of an extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known to the officers." ’ " ( Ibid . ) The high court has recognized that exigent circumstances may exist where there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed but "an emergency leaves police insufficient time to seek a warrant." ( Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) ––– U.S. ––––, , 195 L.Ed.2d 560.) It has also found exigency when an entry or search appears reasonably necessary...