People v. Sedillo
Decision Date | 11 August 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 5368,5368 |
Citation | 185 Cal.Rptr. 475,135 Cal.App.3d 616 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Andrew Cruz SEDILLO et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
We filed our former opinion in this cause on May 7, 1982, holding that the trial court had prejudicially erred in denying appellants' suppression motion. Respondent filed a petition for rehearing. We granted a rehearing and heard oral argument. After further consideration we have decided our original conclusion was correct. Accordingly, we refile the opinion with some additional discussion of the points raised by respondent.
Appellants were convicted after jury trial of receiving stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496). The trial court earlier had denied their joint motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) seized during a warrantless entry of their house. Each appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the suppression motion "since there was no testimony of a specific and articulable fact from which a rational link between the items seized and criminal activity could be inferred." Respondent counters this contention is not cognizable because it was never raised below. For reasons to be stated we will hold the issue was raised and respondent failed adequately to justify the warrantless seizure. 2
In Wilder v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 90, 154 Cal.Rptr. 494, this court held the trial court had erred in denying petitioner's motion to suppress. Petitioner moved to suppress specifically described evidence on the ground it was seized without a warrant. In issuing a writ of mandate, we rejected the theory expressly raised below by real party and held real party was precluded from asserting justifications not raised below. We explained the procedural pitfall into which real party had stumbled:
(Id., at p. 97, 154 Cal.Rptr. 494.)
(Accord, People v. Palmquist (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1, 12, fn. 7, 176 Cal.Rptr. 173.)
In the instant case, appellant Sedillo filed a written "notice of motion and memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5." The motion asserted violations of the California and federal constitutions, and was directed at "the observations made by the police officers incident to the search of the residence at 1809 North Turner Street, Visalia, California on July 28, 1980, including items seized, and/or photographed, and/or the fruits of these seizures or observations including statements of witnesses and/or parties." Appellant asserted the items were seized without warrant and relied expressly on the rule the prosecution bears the burden of justification. Appellant referred explicitly to Wilder.
The prosecution filed a written response to appellant's points and authorities. The response contained a "statement of facts" with references to the reporter's transcript of the preliminary hearing. The response advanced the assertions that "the search and seizure of the residence at 1809 West Turner Street was justified under the doctrine of 'hot pursuit' " and "the search and seizure of the residence at 1809 West Turner Street was justified under the doctrine of exigent circumstances." The prosecution concluded the property was legally seized because it was "in plain sight," citing as authority People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 177 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1.
When the matter came on for hearing, appellant Moreno joined in appellant Sedillo's motion. The parties stipulated no warrant existed and that the matter could be based on the preliminary hearing transcript plus the testimony of one defense witness. After the witness testified, the matter was submitted without further argument. The judge later denied the motion.
The critical preliminary hearing testimony came from Visalia Police Officers Joseph Rodriguez and George Jewett. Rodriguez testified that on July 28, 1980, he arrived at 1042 West Prospect Street at about 8:45 p. m., pursuant to an assault with a deadly weapon dispatch. He saw lots of really excited people in the street. He was told appellant Sedillo had assaulted some person there with a knife. Rodriguez saw appellant Sedillo running in the front yard of 1809 West Turner. Rodriguez identified himself as a police officer and told Sedillo to stop. Sedillo ran into the house and Rodriguez followed.
While Rodriguez did not locate appellant Sedillo, he did find "lots of property in Sears' containers," some televisions, stereos, lawn edgers, sewing machines, and a vacuum cleaner. He contacted his field supervisor. Later, Rodriguez participated in seizing some of the items.
Jewett testified he came to the Turner Street residence at Rodriguez' request. Items were seized by other officers, loaded into a pickup truck, and driven to the Visalia Police Department. The items were Jewett identified photos which he had taken of the seized items.
Appellants now argue the above evidence establishes no more than a generalized suspicion the items were stolen, with no evidence either officer was aware of information to link any particular item to any particular crime. Appellants rely on People v. Murray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 305, 143 Cal.Rptr. 502, and Nunes v. Superior Court (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 915, 161 Cal.Rptr. 351.
Respondent argues appellants' failure to specifically object on this ground below deprived the prosecution of the opportunity to show the evidence seized had the requisite nexus to criminality. 3 We read this as an implied concession that appellants' contention, if cognizable, is meritorious.
Murray, supra, supports appellants' contentions on the merits. There, police officers entered a motel premises under authority of a search warrant which authorized seizure of a number of items which did not include television sets. The officers had general knowledge appellant was fencing stolen property. They did not find the sought items; but in a storage room and bedroom adjacent to defendant's office, they saw numerous items, including a shotgun and 67 television sets, 20 of which had their serial numbers removed. All the items were seized. This court held the plain view doctrine validated seizure only of the 20 sets sans serial numbers:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McAdams
...P.2d 795, 797 (Wyo.1982). One jurisdiction, California, has not definitively answered this question. Compare People v. Sedillo, 135 Cal.App.3d 616, 185 Cal.Rptr. 475, 479 (1982) (answering in the affirmative), with People v. Hallman, 215 Cal.App.3d 1330, 264 Cal.Rptr. 215, 218-22 (1989) (de......
-
People v. Williams
...Amendment issues for appeal. (See, e.g., Britton, supra, 156 Cal.App.3d at pp. 698-700, 202 Cal.Rptr. 882; Sedillo, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d at pp. 623-625, 185 Cal.Rptr. 475; People v. Palmquist (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 1, 12, 176 Cal.Rptr. 173, fn. 7 (Palmquist In People v. Hallman (1989) 215 C......
-
People v. Valenzuela
...contends the prosecution failed to meet its burden of justifying the warrantless metal detector search (see People v. Sedillo (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 616, 623, 185 Cal.Rptr. 475) because the prosecution produced no evidence that the search was for weapons. We The record indicates defendant wa......
-
People v. Rios
...parties, the same is true of the seizures in People v. Albritton (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 79, 187 Cal.Rptr. 652 and People v. Sedillo (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 616, 185 Cal.Rptr. 475.5 However, no evidence received at the hearing on the motion suggested that Mr. Kistler knew the serial number or h......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Scroggins (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 502, §§14:30, 14:30.3 People v. Sears , 2 Cal.3d 180, 189–190, §9:12 People v. Sedillo (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 616, §7:84.2 People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, §10:27 People v. Self (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1054, §13:14.3 People v. Selivanov (2016) ......