legal news


Register | Forgot Password

THE PEOPLE v. ADRIAN

THE PEOPLE v. ADRIAN
07:24:2006

THE PEOPLE v. ADRIAN



Filed 7/17/06 (reposted same date to correct counsel listing)





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA





THE PEOPLE, )


)


Plaintiff and Respondent, )


) S125314


v. )


) Ct.App. 4/2 E032142


ADRIAN EUGENE MOORE, )


) San Bernardino County


Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. FSB022611


__________________________________ )



In 2003, we held that police officers must know of a defendant's parole search condition to justify a warrantless search under that exception. (People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 335 (Sanders).) In this case, because the hearing on the defendant's suppression motion (Pen. Code,[1] § 1538.5) occurred before we decided Sanders, the trial court concluded that the search was valid based only on evidence that the defendant was subject to a parole search condition. (See In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68 (Tyrell J.); People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743.) The parties did not present evidence whether the officers knew of the defendant's search condition at the time of the search.


The question before us is the appropriate remedy in light of Sanders's holding. The Court of Appeal majority here simply reversed the judgment outright, rather than remand for a new suppression hearing. For reasons that follow, we reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings, including to determine whether the officers knew of the search condition.


Factual and Procedural Background


In outlining the relevant facts, we focus on the April 2000 suppression hearing proceedings, including evidence of the preliminary hearing transcript which the trial court considered. (§ 1538.5, subd. (i) [defendant may challenge search â€





Description Where trial court concluded that warrantless search was valid based only on evidence that the defendant was subject to a parole search condition, and intervening California Supreme Court ruling held that such searches are valid only if police knew of the condition, defendant was not entitled to outright reversal of conviction but was entitled to new suppression hearing.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale