Based on Police Experience/Knowledge
Category > Based on Police Experience/Knowledge
Sale of a controlled substance in a business establishment by a patron did not provide probable cause to search the establishment.When a search warrant for a business establishment open to the public is based on the sale of controlled substances by a target who is neither an owner nor employee of the establishment, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant must establish probable cause to believe controlled substances will be found at the business establishment. The sale of controlled substances alone is insufficient, because there is no probable cause to believe the controlled substances are stored in the business establishment rather than on the person or in the possession of the target. However, the police relied in good faith on the search warrant in the present case since there was no prior legal authority on the issue.id: 17551
Suppression was required under Harvey-Madden where the prosecutor failed to establish the existence of the warrants on which defendant was arrested.The trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence where the prosecutor, after proper <i>Havey-Madden</i> objection, failed to adequately establish the existence of the warrants on which defendant was arrested. The court rejected the prosecution's claim that such proof was unnecessary where the person arrested falsely identified himself to police. The court also rejected the claim that suppression is not required because it would have no effect on the behavior of the officer who transmitted information regarding outstanding warrants.id: 15610
Officer lacked probable cause to seize an aluminum foil- wrapped container from appellant's pants pocket.Officer testified that he seized the aluminum foil container from appellant's pants pocket because his experience led him to believe that such package probably contained a narcotic of some type. However, the officer failed to describe anything distinctive about the foil-wrapped package carried by appellant and did not describe the foil containers in which he had previously found narcotics as being similar to the size and shape of the container carried by appellant. The officer therefore lacked probable cause to seize the container.id: 10945
Updated 9/12/2023Evidence establishing a possible connection between defendant and a 1980 rape/murder provided probable cause to support the warrant to search defendant’s trash can.An investigation by the Orange County Crime Lab and the FBI established a possible connection between defendant (living in New Mexico) and the 1980 rape and murder of a woman in Anaheim. Evidence showed defendant had been in Anaheim in 1980. The search warrant seeking defendant’s DNA from his trash can was supported by probable cause.id: 27870
Officer who smelled strong odor of marijuana in a car parked in a high drug area had probable cause to search the car. An officer in a high crime, high drug activity area saw defendant leaning into an open passenger’s side door, and he walked away as the officer approached. The officer opened the driver’s door and noticed the strong smell of fresh marijuana that was inconsistent with the driver’s explanation that he had recently smoked in the car. Based on the officer’s experience, he believed the nervous driver was lying. The officer had probable cause to search the car for an unlawful quantity of marijuana, and he was authorized to search closed containers in the car, including defendant’s backpack. id: 27321
Defendant did not show good cause to determine whether a cell site simulator had been used to track defendant’s location during the investigation.Defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to continue the sentencing hearing so that he could investigate whether the police used a technology called cell site simulator (Stingray) to locate him. He argued the use of the simulator would have violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the trial court had determined before trial that no such surveillance had occurred and that the cell site technology fell within the scope of the warrants issued during the investigation. Therefore, defendant did not show good cause to continue the sentencing hearing. id: 25806
Defendant’s lies about retrieving his motorhome identified by FBI profilers as consistent with the abductions provided probable cause for a warrant to search his house.Detective had information showing defendant lied about retrieving his motorhome from storage on the morning of the abduction. It appeared defendant left in a hurry and did not return home for two days. When he did return he was unusually cooperative - a trait FBI profilers found consistent with abductors. He also matched other characteristics identified by the profilers as consistent with abductors. There was probable cause for a warrant to search his residence. There was also probable cause for subsequent warrants as each was based on additional potentially incriminating evidence discovered via a prior warrant or through investigation.id: 26076
Strict compliance with the Harvey-Madden rule is unnecessary where the police dispatcher receives a call with details creating reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Defendant argued the detention and pat search were improper because the information provided to police was from an anonymous caller and the prosecution failed to establish the source of the information. Defendant argued this violated the Harvey-Madden rule. However, the information provided detailed description of the two suspects and could not have been manufactured. Where the evidence and reasonable inferences from it show the police dispatcher actually received a telephone report creating a reasonable suspicion, strict compliance with the Harvey-Madden rule is unnecessary. Even if the evidence was insufficient to support the detention, the officer’s observation of the encounter between the minor and the officer involved, would not have been suppressed because this testimony arose from an independent source.id: 20965
The warrant to search the computer was supported by probable cause where the officer knew defendant had been communicating with another suspect and the officer believed the communication might be discovered in an e-mail. There was probable cause to issue a warrant to search defendant’s computer where the officer had knowledge that defendant had been corresponding with another suspect in the case, and it was reasonable to believe defendant used the computer to correspond by e-mail. While the affidavit also mentioned an anonymous uncorroborated tip linking defendant to the killing, it was a minor part of the affidavit and there was nothing to suggest defendant relied on it.id: 20292
The search warrant affidavit was supported by probable cause where the child reported a recent molest and defendant had taken steps to make sure no one had access to his computer which was found to contain child pornography.Following a no contest plea, defendant appealed the denial of his motion to traverse and quash a search warrant and suppress child pornography evidence found on his computer. He argued the probable cause affidavit failed to establish that child pornography would be found on his computer. However, the search warrant application was supported by more than the detective's opinion that child molesters collect and store pornography. It was supported by statements of the child that defendant recently molested her, and by his storing the computer in a hot garage and asking his mother not to let anyone "mess with it." The search warrant was supported by probable cause.id: 20071
Arresting officer need not know the precise basis of his fellow officer's conclusion probable cause existed at the time of the arrest.Officer McKnight observed defendant commit a traffic violation. He then relayed this information to another officer who informed Officer Brown to detain defendant. Defendant argued that since Officer Brown did not have knowledge of the traffic violation the stop was not supported by probable cause. However, Officer Brown's stop of defendant was justified in that he relied on the collective knowledge of other officers to establish probable cause.id: 15609
Officer had probable cause to believe the VCR was stolen where it was being carried by a known burglar in an area where several burglaries had been committed.Officer saw appellant standing in the street in a mobile home park occupied primarily by senior citizens. He knew appellant did not live there and had been previously arrested for burglary. Appellant was carrying a rectangular object wrapped in a blanket and seemed anxious. The officer knew that several burglaries had been committed in the neighborhood. Appellant had a screwdriver in his back pocket and the officer knew that such tools are commonly used in burglaries. Appellant placed the object in the car and when the officer looked in the car, he saw the object was a VCR. Under the circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe the VCR was stolen and to seize it.id: 10944
Officer's prior drug related contacts with defendant helped corroborate informant's tip and established probable cause for the search warrant.Officers received information from a citizen informant that defendant was dealing drugs from his house. The officers independently corroborated the informant's claim of heavy foot traffic to and from the defendant's home with firsthand observation of recent heavy traffic. Moreover, one officer had a contact with defendant in 1990 when he admitted he owed money to a drug dealer, and a second officer was told by an informant in 1992 that defendant's wife furnished cocaine to an unidentified woman. Under the circumstances, the corroboration of the information provided probable cause to search the residence. Although some of the corroborating information was two and four years old, and arguably stale, it was entitled to some weight in the probable cause determination. Finally, the good-faith exception would have saved the search since a reasonably trained officer would not have known the affidavit failed to establish probable cause.id: 10946
Officer's testimony that the substance possessed was in fact cocaine supports the magistrate's finding of probable cause.Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine that he had purchased from an undercover officer. The superior court overturned the magistrate's finding of probable cause and held there was no competent evidence that the substance was in fact cocaine. However, it was reasonable for the magistrate to conclude the officer was qualified to give an expert opinion as to the nature of the substance he sold defendant and reasonable for him to accept the officer's expert opinion it was rock cocaine.id: 10947
Probable cause supported the search of the vehicle notwithstanding that the officers had seen the chemicals unloaded from the car.Appellant argued that because the affiant stated that the chemicals were unloaded from the Cadillac, there were no facts to indicate that there would be contraband in the car when the warrant was executed. However, the magistrate reasonably concluded that because the Cadillac was used to transport equipment and chemicals to the clandestine lab, it was probable that the Cadillac would be used to transport the manufactured drugs to the point of distribution.id: 10948
Probable cause was established where the informant provided information as to co-defendant and the officer knew of their past joint criminal activity.Defendant argued the search warrant affidavit did not set forth sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant. He claimed the informant's statements related only to co-defendant and not himself and that the detective's opinions as to defendant's involvement was based on hunch rather than probable cause. However, the detective logically inferred that if co-defendant was planning to kill witnesses, defendant could well be acting in concert with him based upon his knowledge of their past joint criminal activity. Even if the warrant was issued absent probable cause the officers executed it in good faith and they were entitled to rely on the magistrate's legal determination that a warrant could properly issue.id: 10949
Criminal proceedings need not be instituted before an arrest warrant may be issued.Defendant was arrested pursuant to a Ramey warrant which stated at the bottom the complaint underlying this arrest warrant does not initiate a criminal proceeding. Defendant argued that a document which says it does not institute criminal proceedings cannot be the basis for an arrest warrant. However, neither constitutional nor statutory directives concerning warrants require that criminal proceedings must be instituted before an arrest warrant may be issued.id: 10941
Harvey-Madden rule applies only to arrest and is not extended to detentions.According to the <i>Harvey-Madden</i> rule when an officer makes an arrest based on information received through official channels the prosecution is required to show that the officer who originally furnished the information had probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a felony. This rule does not require that the officer who made the broadcast which caused the stop of the automobile be produced in court.id: 10942
Information that dealer was selling drugs from his own property justified a search of the residence as well as the arrest of the dealer.The informant asserted that Indio was selling large quantities of heroin from his residence. In corroboration of this claim, the police independently knew that Indio lived at the Abbey Street address and that a controlled buy had taken place on the property. These facts permitted a logical inference that narcotics were probably being kept on the premises. Therefore, probable cause existed to search the residence as well as to arrest Indio.id: 10943
Defendant's arrest in her house two hours and fifteen minutes after the nearby accident was supported by reasonable cause.Evidence supported the trial court's finding there was reasonable cause to arrest defendant for drunk driving. Defendant's home was a relatively short distance from the accident. The accident occurred in a remote area, involved no injuries, and the responding officers were delayed by other incidents. Defendant admitted she was driving. She showed the usual signs of intoxication and denied drinking after the accident. Her arrest two hours and fifteen minutes after the accident and in the neighborhood where it occurred was not unreasonable as a matter of law.id: 10572
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850