People v. Tacy
Decision Date | 03 November 1987 |
Docket Number | No. H002369,H002369 |
Citation | 241 Cal.Rptr. 400,195 Cal.App.3d 1402 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Frances Louise TACY and William Douglas Cannon, Defendants and Respondents. |
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Martin S. Kaye, Super. Deputy Atty. Gen., Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for appellant.
Rose & Arnold Law Corp., Ronald W. Rose, Mark A. Arnold, Carleen R. Arlidge, John M. Wadsworth, Jean O. Harris, San Jose, for respondent Tacy.
William W. Burns, Los Gatos, for respondent Cannon.
The People appeal from an order of the superior court which denied their motion to reinstate a criminal complaint. (Pen.Code § 1238, subd. (a)(9).) The sole question confronting us is whether police officers, in executing a search warrant, sufficiently complied with the "knock-notice" requirements of Penal Code section 1531. We conclude that they did, and we therefore reverse.
Penal Code section 1531 reads thus: "The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house or anything therein, to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance."
In July of 1985 Detective Kevin Kyle was a member of the Specialized Crimes Action Team (S.C.A.T.) in Santa Clara County. That team specialized in enforcement of the narcotics laws. Kyle, in an undercover capacity, became acquainted with one Fawn Tate, from whom he purchased methamphetamine and other drugs on several occasions. On July 29, 1985, Kyle asked Tate to procure for him an eighth of an ounce of methaphetamine, and provided her with $180 in bills, the serial numbers of which had been recorded.
At Tate's direction, Kyle drove her to a certain apartment complex in Campbell. Tate pointed out Apartment 1 as her destination. She left the car with the marked funds, entered Apartment 1, and returned a few minutes later bearing a plastic bag containing methampetamine. She told Kyle that her suppliers were a sister and brother named "Frankie" and "Doug." Equipped with this information Kyle prepared an affidavit, and secured from the municipal court a warrant to search Apartment 1. The search warrant was issued on August 2, 1985, apparently during regular business hours.
Then the plot thickened. In the late afternoon of August 2, 1985, an informant told Kyle that Tate had recently learned Kyle was a cop. Learning this, Kyle sent a police officer to surveil Tate's residence. Then Kyle telephoned Tate and talked with her. From the discussion he concluded that Tate did indeed know he was a cop. Immediately after the telephone conversation the surveilling officer advised Kyle that Tate was driving away from her residence. Fearing that Tate was on her way to warn the occupants of Apartment 1, Kyle gave instructions to have her arrested for sales of methamphetamine. The arrest was promptly made, and Tate was brought to the police department. According to Kyle, Tate's arrest occurred "between an hour and two hours" before the search warrant was served. 1
At 9:46 p.m. on the same date (August 2, 1985) Kyle and five other police officers repaired to Apartment 1. They came equipped with the search warrant and its supporting affidavit. Two of the officers were in regulation uniform. Kyle himself was According to Kyle, the remaining officers "were dressed in a fashion very similar to the way I was dressed."
Kyle had his revolver drawn. He did not recall whether the other officers also had drawn their weapons, but he testified that "it's standard practice for us to have them drawn." On direct examination he described the entry thus:
On cross-examination Kyle testified to the following:
Cannon was handcuffed, and remained on the couch. A search of the apartment revealed (1) a substantial quantity of methamphetamine packaged in baggies; (2) a substantial amount of currency, including the $180 Kyle had given Fawn Tate five days earlier; and (3) a checkbook and driver's license belonging to appellant Tacy. While the search was in progress Tacy, appellant Cannon's sister, appeared on the scene, and she too was arrested.
The foregoing facts were presented to a magistrate at a hearing which combined a preliminary examination with a motion to suppress evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the magistrate refused to commit the defendants. She expressly found that there had been substantial compliance with Penal Code section 1531. Nevertheless, relying on People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 223 Cal.Rptr. 555, she ruled that there had been "a violation of 1531 because there was a refusal to request admission." She further ruled that no exigency existed "because of the delay in time and the fact that Tacy [sic: Tate] [was] already in custody at the time of the execution of the search warrant." The motion to suppress evidence was granted, Tacy and Cannon were discharged, and bail was exonerated.
The superior court agreed, apparently for different reasons. The judge conceded that the conduct of the officers
In People v. Neer, supra, 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 223 Cal.Rptr. 555, police officers procured a search warrant for Neer's home. Four officers went to the premises to serve the warrant. They detained Neer in the front yard, but at that point they were unaware of his identity. One of the officers shouted: " 'We're the police department, don't move ... we have a search warrant.' " (Id., at p. 994, 223 Cal.Rptr. 555.) An officer named Klein, wearing a police raid jacket and hat, approached the front door. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Murphy
...to comply with knock-notice requirements violates the Fourth Amendment and must be suppressed. (See, e.g., People v. Tacy (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1402, 1413-1414, 241 Cal.Rptr. 400 ["conclud[ing] that Duke v. Superior Court, supra, 1 Cal.3d 314, 325, 82 Cal.Rptr. 348, 461 P.2d 628, retains it......
-
People v. Murphy
...to a known announcement. (See People v. Hoag, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1211-1212, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556; People v. Tacy (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1402, 1421-1422, 241 Cal.Rptr. 400; People v. Uhler, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at pp. 768-770, 256 Cal.Rptr. 336; People v. Trujillo, supra, 217 Cal.Ap......
-
People v. Hoag, C031031.
...p. 930, 115 S.Ct. at p. 1916, 131 L.Ed.2d at p. 980), not every technical violation will have this effect (People v. Tacy (1987) 195 Cal. App.3d 1402, 1415-1416, 241 Cal.Rptr. 400). California appellate courts have recognized the concept of substantial compliance in appropriate circumstance......
-
The People v. Hoag
...Wilson, supra, 514 U.S. at p. 930 [131 L.Ed.2d at p. 980]), not every technical violation will have this effect (People v. Tacy (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1402, 1415-1416). California appellate courts have recognized the concept of substantial compliance in appropriate circumstances. (See People......