- OVIEDA, 7 C5 1034, 250 CR3 754, 446 P3 262 (19):
In People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, the California Supreme Court articulated a “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement for government entry into a private residence.
Ray held that “circumstances short of a perceived emergency may justify a warrantless entry” into a home.
The Court now overturns that part of Ray, holding that Under United States Supreme Court authority recognizes “exigent circumstances” as an exception, but not community caretaking.
FACTS:
Officers were dispatched to Def’s home in Santa Barbara after family members reported he was suicidal and had access to a handgun. Five officers responded and set up a perimeter. They learned defendant was inside with two friends, Trevor Case and his wife, Amber.
Case came out and told officers that he and his wife disarmed Def, then Case took the handgun, two rifles, and ammunition and put them in the garage.
Then Amber came out with Def. He was cuffed and searched.
Officers Corbett and Bruce entered the home to do a “protective sweep to secure the premises” and make sure there was no one else inside who might be armed, injured, or in need of aid. During the sweep, Corbett noted “an overwhelmingly strong odor of marijuana” and numerous items related to “marijuana cultivation and concentrated cannabis production.” He also saw ammo, a gun case, scales, and a large industrial drying oven with ducts leading to the garage.
More officers were called to the scene. No search warrant was ever obtained. Large quantities of ammo and drug-producing equipment were removed from the house and garage. Recovered weaponry included a submachine gun and a rifle with a long-range scope.
Defendant was charged with manufacturing a controlled substance, importing an assault weapon, and possessing a silencer and short-barreled rifle. He moved to suppress the evidence found in his home. The court denied the motion, and a divided Court of Appeal upheld the search via the “community caretaking exception.”
The California Supreme Court, per Corrigan, J., reverses. The decision analyzes Ray and subsequent cases, and United States Supreme Court precedent. The conclusion is simple:
In sum, the community caretaking exception asserted in the absence of exigency is not one of the carefully delineated exceptions to the residential warrant requirement recognized by the United States Supreme Court. To date, that court has only recognized community caretaking searches in the context of vehicle impound procedures.
***
We conclude that an entry for reasons short of a perceived emergency, or similar exigency, fails to satisfy the relevant constitutional standard.
Flight + High Crime Area (Without More) ≠ Reasonable Suspicion
- FLORES, 38 CA5 617, ___ CR3 ___ (19) #G055861:
On a weekday afternoon, seven officers went to an alleyway claimed by the “Looney Tunes Crew,” also known as the “LTK” street gang. The team approached via both ends of the alley. Def. started running away, made eye contact with an officer, and slowed down. He was detained.
Off noticed a bulge in Def’s sock. Def. gave it up. It was Meth. A later search of Def’s apartment was conducted without consent, and more meth was found.
Def. moved to suppress. The court granted suppression re: the evidence from the apartment. But the original detention and statements made by Def were admitted because there was both “flight” at the sight of police, and it was a “high crime area.” The court cited Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119 for support.
The Court of Appeal, Per Thompson, J., reverses.
“[T]he Supreme Court has never endorsed a per se rule that flight establishes reasonable suspicion to detain. Instead, flight is but one relevant factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis.”
Reasonable suspicion requires “flight-plus” other circumstances. One of these is “high crime area” as in Souza, 9 C4 224 (94). But the court here distinguishes Souza because there the contact was at night. Here it was in the daytime.
So while the People argued for a bright-line rule of Flight + High Crime Area = Reasonable Suspicion, the court didn’t not go for it:
Wardlow fails to provide the People with the necessary support needed to justify defendant’s initial seizure. Consequently, the People failed to meet their burden to show specific, articulable grounds to justify detaining defendant. As such, the evidence obtained from defendant immediately following his detention was unlawfully obtained and should have been suppressed.
Officer Testimony About Surveillance Videos Adequate for Establishing P-C to Arrest
- Alexander, 36 CA5 827, 248 CR3 564 (19) #A151809:
SF Police sergeant investigated a series of ten robberies in August and September 2012. The suspects were two African-American males, one taller and thinner than the other. Off obtained police reports regarding all of the incidents and surveillance videos of eight of the incidents. He viewed and compared the videos multiple times.
Responding to a dispatch about another robbery, Off arrived in the general area in an unmarked vehicle about twenty minutes after the broadcast and observed two men cross the street about twelve feet in front of him. He “immediately recognized” them as the suspects in the robberies he had been investigating.
Off called for backup, followed Defs for a short distance, and then apprehended them at gunpoint. He searched a black bag and found two stolen cell phones. Another officer found car keys that were connected to a white Chevy that looked like the getaway car in one of the robbery videos. Off searched the vehicle and found a black replica handgun and a dark-colored beanie cap.
Defs moved to suppress. Denied. The Court of Appeal, per Simons, J., affirmed the denial.
Defs argued that the Officer’s testimony about the videos was hearsay, and therefore could be used as a basis for probable cause. The court did not agree.
In the present case, Sergeant Maguire’s testimony about how he obtained the surveillance videos and what he observed in the videos was not admitted to prove the videos depicted the robberies or to prove the content of the videos. Instead, the testimony was admitted to inform the trial court of the basis for Maguire’s belief he had probable cause to arrest appellants.
***
Sergeant Maguire testified under oath about surveillance videos of seven robberies. Maguire did not have personal knowledge of the robberies or how the videos were made, but there is little reason to doubt the videos depict the robberies under investigation.