People v. Shepherd, C015921

Citation28 Cal.Rptr.2d 458,23 Cal.App.4th 825
Decision Date23 March 1994
Docket NumberNo. C015921,C015921
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Patricia Ann SHEPHERD, Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edmund D. McMurray and Doris A. Calandra, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

SIMS, Acting Presiding Justice.

We hold that a woman has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a purse left in a stolen car. Hence, she has no "standing" to contest a search of the purse by police officers.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence 1 (Pen.Code, § 1538.5), defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to a charge of receiving stolen property. (Pen.Code, § 496, former subd. 1.) Granted probation, defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying her suppression motion. We disagree and shall affirm.

FACTS

The following facts are adduced from the transcript of the preliminary examination. In the late evening hours of November 27, 1992, El Dorado County Sheriff's Deputy Murphy observed defendant and codefendant Harris standing in front of a Cameron Park liquor store. Harris was arrested on two outstanding traffic warrants. Murphy let defendant go when a warrant check on a false name she provided revealed no warrants.

In the early morning hours of November 28, 1992, El Dorado County Sheriff's Deputy Kenneth Danielson observed a truck parked around the corner from the Cameron Park liquor store. He noticed the license plate on the front of the truck differed from the back plate. Danielson learned the truck apparently had been stolen in Sacramento the day before.

Sheriff's Deputies searched the truck. The truck's doors were unlocked, and the ignition had been punched out. A purse containing documents bearing defendant's From a photograph found in the purse, Deputy Murphy identified defendant as the individual he had released earlier. He later arrested defendant. Defendant told Murphy someone had given the truck to Harris. She also stated she did not know the truck was stolen, but should have presumed it had been stolen because the ignition was punched.

name lay on the driver's side floorboard. The deputies also found duffel bags in the bed of the truck, which contained papers bearing defendant's and Harris' names.

Relying on People v. Melnyk (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1532, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, the trial court denied the suppression motion, ruling neither defendant nor codefendant Harris had "standing" to challenge the search of the truck.

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends "she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of her purse, and her Fourth Amendment right to privacy was violated when Deputy Sheriff Danielson searched her purse and seized the contents; therefore, the trial court erred in finding that [defendant] lacked standing to challenge the search of her purse." 2

"Before reaching the question whether the officer's [action] was a 'search' ..., we must determine whether the challenged action by the officer 'has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.' (Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 140 [58 L.Ed.2d 387, 399, 99 S.Ct. 421, 429]; Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d); In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 882-883 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744].) [p] An illegal search or seizure violates the federal constitutional rights only of those who have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place or seized thing. [Citation.] The legitimate expectation of privacy must exist in the particular area searched or thing seized in order to bring a Fourth Amendment challenge. [Citations.] A defendant bears the burden to show he had such an expectation. [Citations.] Factors to consider in the determination include ' "whether the defendant has a [property or] possessory interest in the thing seized or the place searched; whether he has the right to exclude others from that place; whether he has exhibited a subjective expectation that it would remain free from governmental invasion, whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy and whether he was legitimately on the premises." ' [Citations.]" (People v. Hernandez (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1182, 1188-1189, 245 Cal.Rptr. 513; italics in original, fn. omitted; followed in People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1171-1172, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.)

In People v. Melnyk, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1533-1534, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 570, the court held a car thief lacks "standing" to attack an allegedly illegal search and seizure of the vehicle. Relying on Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 141, footnote 9 [99 S.Ct. 421, 429, footnote 9, 58 L.Ed.2d 387, 399-400], the court concluded that an individual not legally present in a vehicle cannot invoke the privacy of the premises searched. (Melnyk, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1533-1534, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 570.)

Here, defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the stolen truck. She contends she retained a privacy interest in her purse, left in the truck. We cannot agree. We noted in People v. Hernandez, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at page 1189, 245 Cal.Rptr. 513, that an important consideration in evaluating a privacy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • People v. Carreon
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 30 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...a legitimate privacy interest in the contents of her purse depends in part on where the purse is located.” (People v. Shepherd (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 825, 829, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 458 [woman had no 248 Cal.App.4th 880 reasonable expectation of privacy in purse left in stolen car].) Purses have be......
  • People v. Nishi
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 13 d5 Julho d5 2012
    ...of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.” [Citations.] ...’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Shepherd (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 825, 828, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 458.) “ ‘An illegal search or seizure violates the federal constitutional rights only of those who have a legitimate expe......
  • People v. Nishi
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 17 d3 Outubro d3 2012
    ...of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.” [Citations.] ...’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Shepherd (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 825, 828, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 458.) “ ‘An illegal search or seizure violates the federal constitutional rights only of those who have a legitimate expe......
  • The People v. Letner, S015384
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 29 d4 Julho d4 2010
    ...v. Smith (1966) 63 Cal.2d 779, 800-801 [no reasonable expectation of privacy in an abandoned rental car]; People v. Shepherd (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 825, 828-829 [no expectation of privacy in a purse abandoned in a stolen truck].) In any event, even were I to conclude defendants could challen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...5-A, §3.3.1(3)(h) People v. Shelton, 151 Cal. App. 2d 587, 311 P.2d 859 (1st Dist. 1957)—Ch. 5-B, §2.2.2(3)(a)[3] People v. Shepherd, 23 Cal. App. 4th 825, 28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458 (3d Dist. 1994)—Ch. 5-A, §5.1.3(1)(b) People v. Shoemaker, 135 Cal. App. 3d 442, 185 Cal. Rptr. 370 (3d Dist. 1982......
  • Chapter 5 - §5. Procedure for excluding evidence
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...generally must establish that he was given permission to use the vehicle by its owner. See, e.g., People v. Shepherd (3d Dist.1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 825, 828 (D had no standing to challenge search of stolen vehicle); People v. Melnyk (4th Dist.1992) 4 Cal. App.4th 1532, 1533-34 (same); People......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT