People v. Superior Court

Decision Date11 October 2006
Docket NumberNo. H029017.,H029017.
Citation49 Cal.Rptr.3d 831,143 Cal.App.4th 1183
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Santa Clara County, Respondent; Christopher Eugene Walker, Real Party in Interest.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

DUFFY, J.

A 19-year-old college student, defendant/real party in interest Christopher Eugene Walker (defendant), was charged with possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf.Code, § 11359.) Critical evidence supporting that charge was obtained from defendant's dormitory room at Santa Clara University (University) as a result of a warrantless search and seizure by police officers of the City of Santa Clara.

Defendant brought a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.1 He contended that evidence supporting the charge against him—i.e., marijuana, a digital scale, and $1,800 cash (collectively, the contraband2)—was illegally seized by the police. After an evidentiary hearing, submission of supplemental briefing, and a further hearing, the superior court granted defendant's motion to suppress. In so ruling, the court rejected the People's contention that the search and seizure of the contraband was reasonable because a University security officer—who had the lawful right to be present in defendant's dormitory room—had given consent for the police to enter the room.

The People filed a statutory petition for writ of mandate challenging the suppression order, pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (o). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the University security officer did not have actual authority to consent to the search; on this basis, we therefore do not deem the warrantless police entry into defendant's dormitory room to have been reasonable. The People also contend that the search was reasonable based upon a third party's apparent authority to consent, i.e., it was reasonable for the police to believe that the security officer could consent to the search. While we acknowledge that this position may have some validity, we need not resolve the question, in light of our holding that the suppression motion should have been denied on another basis; the seized contraband was not subject to the exclusionary rule because the contraband would have been inevitably discovered. Accordingly, we will grant the People's petition for writ of mandate.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.)3 After a preliminary hearing, he was held to answer.

Defendant thereafter filed a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5. He sought suppression of "any physical evidence, any statements, and any observations that were obtained, as a result of or after any officers or campus security officers made any entry into or observations into" his dormitory room. Defendant argued that the entry into and observations made of his room were the product of a warrantless and unreasonable search or seizure.

The People filed written opposition to the motion, and the court conducted an evidentiary hearing.4 After receiving supplemental briefs, and after hearing further argument, the court granted the motion to suppress the contraband seized by the Santa Clara police.

On July 6, 2005, the People filed their petition for writ of mandate with this court, pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (o). Because we concluded that the petition presented close and important questions of constitutional law, we issued an order directing the superior court to show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue as prayed in the People's petition. That order established a briefing schedule for the filing by defendant of a return in opposition and any reply by the People.

RELEVANT FACTS
I. Stipulated Testimony of University Safety Officer Kim Payne

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress on May 24, 2005, the parties stipulated that Kim Payne (Payne), a University safety officer, would have testified (had he been sworn) as follows:5

"On October 15, 2004, about 6:30 p.m., Santa Clara University Campus Safety Service Officer Kim Payne was conducting routine bicycle patrol of the campus. He observed the defendant smoking marijuana outside Sobrato Hall. As the defendant was walking with two other students, Mr. Payne watched defendant light what appeared to be a `blunt' (a small cigar stuffed with marijuana). As Mr. Payne turned towards the group, the defendant tried to hide the blunt in his right hand as one of the other students moved in front of him. Mr. Payne smelled the odor of marijuana. He stopped the three students and asked them for their access cards. . . .

"Mr. Payne then asked the defendant what he was smoking. The defendant stated that it was a blunt, saying it was the only one he had, but that he had more marijuana in his room for medical use. He spontaneously said that Mr. Payne could come up to his room and invited him to look at the marijuana and his medical marijuana card. He then showed Mr. Payne two cannabis club cards, which he said that he had used to legally purchase the marijuana. When asked if the Dean of Student Life was aware of his marijuana use and needs, the defendant stated that he had not notified the University. He then gave the blunt to Mr. Payne when requested to do so.

"After Mr. Payne had informed the defendant that he would meet him at his room, they met at the east entrance to Graham Hall 100. Mr. Payne used his access card to gain entry into the building. The defendant unlocked his room door with his own key and escorted Mr. Payne inside. The defendant then removed a sandwich size plastic bag of marijuana from the drawers in the closet. He stated that he had purchased this marijuana from a cannabis club in Oakland, showing Mr. Payne a medical release form that purported to authorize his use of marijuana for therapeutic use. Mr. Payne observed a knife, a pair of scissors, four miniature cigars and a small electronic scale on the desk near the doorway.

"The defendant was acting rather suspiciously as he stood near the closet drawers. When asked if there was any more marijuana in the room, he stated that there was not, and if there were more marijuana in the room, he would know about it. Mr. Payne then checked the top drawer in the closet and noticed an open box of snack size plastic bags, a plastic bag of several disassembled cigars, and several snack size plastic bags with marijuana remnants inside. The bottom right drawer contained a white and red Igloo cooler with two sandwich sized bags full of marijuana. In the second drawer a wad of cash containing $1,800 was located. Walker claimed that he had won the money while playing cards.

"[¶] . . . [¶] After the arrival of the two Santa Clara Police Department Officers, Mr. Payne continued to search and found a jar containing two more sandwich size bags full of marijuana beneath a bunch of dirty clothes in the closet. Two additional boxes of unused sandwich size plastic bags were also found in the room.

"All evidence items located there and the photos of them were given to [Police] Office Green, who later booked them into evidence at the Santa Clara Police Department. Exhibit 2. The defendant stated spontaneously that these items belonged to him and not to his roommate."

II. Stipulated Testimony of Police Officer Tyson Green

The parties agreed further at the hearing on the motion to suppress that Officer Tyson Green of the Santa Clara Police Department would have testified as follows:

"The Santa Clara Police Department was contacted by the University Campus Safety Office, and they were told that a considerable amount of drugs had been found in a Residence Hall room. As a result, Officers Green and Lamendola went to that [U]niversity Residence Hall at about 7:04 p.m. [on October 15, 2004], and they met in the first floor hallway with Santa Clara University campus safety officer Michael Brady.

"[Brady's] partner, Kim Payne ... was still inside the room with the defendant. Mr. Brady said to the [police] officers, `You've got to see this.' And he swung open the door inwardly to room 104[,] which is the defendant's residence room.

"At that point, the Santa Clara [police] officers were standing in the hallway next to the defendant's dormitory room. And while standing in the hallway after the door was swung open, from a distance of approximately five feet, the officers were able to observe a large quantity of what they knew to be marijuana in plastic baggies and cash on the desk just inside room 104. The marijuana was in plain view and openly visible to any persons that walked the hallway.

"The [police] officers stood there for a few moments until [Mr.] Payne and the defendant were standing near the doorway and they asked [Mr.] Payne if he had received consent to search the room. Mr. Payne told him that he had received consent but that it wasn't necessary because of the waiver the defendant had signed in his Residence Housing Contract. Both officers then entered the room."

III. University Housing Contract

In addition to the stipulated testimony of Payne and Officer Green, the housing agreement between the University and the defendant (Housing Contract) was before the court.6 The "Terms and Conditions of Occupancy" appended to the contract provided in relevant part: "Room entry and inspection may occur periodically. The University balances the right to privacy of the resident students with the responsibility to maintain a safe environment for all students and staff in the residence halls. The University will take all reasonable steps to ensure the residents of a room receive...

To continue reading

Request your trial
84 cases
  • People v. Nash, A123128 (Cal. App. 12/18/2009)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 18, 2009
    ...of evidence derived from a police search and seizure by applying federal constitutional standards." (People v. Superior Court (Walker) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183,1195.) "Pursuant to article I, section 28, of the California Constitution, a trial court may exclude evidence under Penal Code s......
  • People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 2012
    ...... and search ... legally does not justify application of the inevitable discovery exception. ( [ People v. Superior Court ( Walker ) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183,] 1215 [49 Cal.Rptr.3d 831].) A violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be disregarded ‘ “simply because the police, had they ......
  • People v. Carreon
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2016
    ...access to defendant's bedroom without citing any precedent involving landlords or overnight guests.In People v. Superior Court (Walker ) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 831, this court reviewed several cases involving a landlord's authority. “[A] landlord may not give valid thir......
  • State v. Rodriguez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 7, 2017
    ...privacy and freedom from an unreasonable search or seizure. See Grubbs , 177 S.W.3d at 318 ; People v. Superior Court, (Walker ) 143 Cal.App. 4th 1183, 1209, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 831 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) ; Beauchamp v. State , 742 So.2d 431, 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) ; Com. v. Neilson, 423 M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...Cal.3d 800, 808 (owner-rancher could not consent to search of housing he provided for farm workers); People v. Walker (6th Dist.2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1205-06 (neither university nor security guard could consent to search of college dorm room); People v. Jaquez (4th Dist.1985) 163 Cal.......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Court (Valdez), 35 Cal. 3d 11, 196 Cal. Rptr. 359, 671 P.2d 863 (1983)—Ch. 5-A, §3.1.2(2)(a) People v. Superior Court (Walker), 143 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831, 213 Ed. Law Rep. 714 (6th Dist. 2006)—Ch. 5-A, §3.3.1(2)(a)[2] People v. Sweeney, 175 Cal. App. 4th 210, 95 Cal. Rptr......
  • Search and seizure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...a warrant—has been rejected by our Supreme Court in People v. Robles [23 Cal.4th 789, 801]. People v. Superior Court ( Walker ) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1215. See also, U.S. v. Reilly (9th Cir. 2000) 224 F.3d 986, 995 (“to excuse the failure to obtain a warrant merely because the officers had ......

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