People v. Pipitone

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: KING; LOW, P.J., and HANING
• Citation: People v. Pipitone, 201 Cal.Rptr. 18, 152 Cal.App.3d 1112 (Cal. App. 1984)
• Decision Date: 12 March 1984
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald Gene PIPITONE et al., Defendants and Respondents. A016895.

Page 18

201 Cal.Rptr. 18

152 Cal.App.3d 1112

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald Gene PIPITONE et al., Defendants and Respondents.

A016895.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

March 12, 1984.

Hearing Denied June 21, 1984.

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Herbert F. Wilkinson, Aileen Bunney, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert D. Reichman, San Francisco, Louisa Havstad, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, James Leonard Crew, Hayward, Martin A. Kotler, Kotler & Kotler, Walnut Creek, R. Brewster Thompson, San Francisco, J. Thomas Sherrod, Fremont, Jules F. Bonjour, Jr., Bonjour, Gough, Stone & Remer, Hayward, for defendants and respondents.

KING, Associate Justice.

The People appeal from orders of dismissal of various narcotics charges against Ronald Gene Pipitone, Donald Vincent Dorso, Janet Louise Cardoza, David Alan Brown, Susan Evelyn Foley, and Jeffrey Hamilton Seibold.

An information charged all six defendants with possession of cocaine for purposes of sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11351) and possession of barbiturates (Health & Saf.Code, § 11377). The information also charged Pipitone with possession of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350), and charged Cardoza with a second count of possession of barbiturates and driving while under the influence of a drug (former Veh.Code, § 23105, subd. (a)).

Defendants had moved unsuccessfully in the municipal court for suppression of evidence seized in a residential search pursuant to a purported search condition of Cardoza's probation. (Pen.Code, § 1538.5.) After the information was filed they moved to set it aside. (Pen.Code, § 995.) The superior court granted the motion, asserting that there was no valid probation condition, that the officers did not exercise good faith in searching the residence, and that in any event there is no good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. We reverse the orders of dismissal.

Shortly after midnight on May 4, 1981, Fremont Police Officer John Schlimm was notified by a police dispatcher that an anonymous source had reported that defendants Dorso, Cardoza, and Brown were dealing narcotics from a Fremont residence and that a white van and a brown Camaro were being used in drug trafficking. Schlimm was familiar with all three persons, and had previously arrested Cardoza for drug-related offenses.

Schlimm and another officer drove to the address in an unmarked car. After a period of surveillance, at about 2:00 a.m., they saw Cardoza leave the house and drive off in a brown Camaro. They followed her, and eventually had a Union City police car stop her because she had been driving erratically. Schlimm concluded that she was under the influence of PCP.

Schlimm asked Cardoza whether she was currently on probation or parole. She answered that she was on probation. He asked whether one of the conditions of probation was to submit her person, vehicle, and residence to a warrantless search, and she responded affirmatively. She said she lived at the Fremont residence. Schlimm received radio verification that Cardoza was on probation with a search condition, and was also told that she had an outstanding arrest warrant. He arrested her; his partner searched her car and found an aspirin tin containing secobarbitol.

Schlimm, his partner, and three other officers then went to the Fremont residence. Schlimm knocked on the front door; David Brown answered. Schlimm asked if Dorso was home. Brown said he was not, but then said he was home but was sleeping. Schlimm said that the officers were there to conduct a search pursuant to Cardoza's probation search condition. He then "heard some things from another part of the house." Schlimm testified, "I heard someone running, and I heard something--falling and rattling and saw a male through the doorway of the kitchen moving quickly." Schlimm immediately entered the house and went to the kitchen, where he found Pipitone, Foley, and Seibold, and saw cocaine and items indicating cocaine freebasing.

Schlimm next went to a rear bedroom. He knocked on a closed door, received no response, and then entered and found Dorso on a bed. He saw cocaine paraphernalia and a box containing "a little bit" of white powdery debris. Dorso told Schlimm which bedroom was Cardoza's; Schlimm and his partner searched her room and found more cocaine paraphernalia and powder residue.

On September 7, 1978, Cardoza had been placed on three years' probation with certain conditions, including that she "submit her person, her premises, her vehicle to search at anytime day or night upon request of a police officer or probation officer with or without a search warrant." On April 1, 1980, her probation was summarily revoked. A hearing after revocation was set for April 21. On that date the court restored Cardoza's probation, stating only, "The previous order revoking probation is set aside and the defendant is restored to probation. [p] Now I don't know how they happened to think that you were driving under the influence of drugs but I better warn you that you better not be. [p] So report to your probation officer." The court clerk checked a box on the minute order form indicating that "All terms and conditions to remain in full force and effect."

The People challenge the superior court's determination that the search of Cardoza's residence was unlawful for want of an effective probation search condition. They rely on People v. Barkins (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 30, 32-33, 145 Cal.Rptr. 926, which held that summary revocation of probation does not itself terminate probation or its conditions, as due process hearing rights have not yet been afforded, and that the conditions therefore continue if probation is restored.

Defendants contend that Barkins was wrongly decided. They further argue that the present case should be governed by Freytes v. Superior Court (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 958, 962, 132 Cal.Rptr. 26, which found unlawful a probation search performed after a court summarily revoked probation that had included a search condition and then restored probation with six express conditions not including a search condition.

Freytes is to be distinguished from the present case. The rationale for the ruling in Freytes was not, as defendants would have this court declare, that summary revocation of probation eliminates all probation conditions. The court's rationale was that the restoration of Freytes' probation upon six express terms excluding a search condition extinguished the prior search condition under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another thing not mentioned). (60 Cal.App.3d at p. 958, 132 Cal.Rptr. 26.) Here, upon restoration there was no express imposition of conditions to the exclusion of a search condition, but a restoration of the previously ordered probation. The court's warning to Cardoza not to drive under the influence of drugs and its directive to report to her probation officer cannot reasonably be construed as anything more than a warning to "stay in line," especially given the failure to specify any terms for reporting to the probation officer. Unlike Freytes, the court in restoring probation took no action that expressly or impliedly removed the search condition.

The decision in Barkins is sound. As a matter of due process, summary revocation cannot affect a grant of probation or its conditions, given the right to a hearing as set forth in People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 458-459, 105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313, except to the extent that probation is suspended pending the hearing. Summary revocation causes only a temporary suspension; it is simply a device by which the defendant may be brought before the court and jurisdiction retained before formal revocation proceedings...