Consenting To Multiple Searches

Consenting To One Vehicle Search Can Mean Consenting To Multiple Searches

The general rule concerning any search without a warrant is that the search is presumed illegal. It is a liberty invasion. Once a defendant shows that the search was conducted without a warrant, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show an exception to the general rule applies.

Voluntary consent to a search is one such exception. The scope of such consent is “objective reasonableness,” meaning what would a typical reasonable person believe the consent covered.

The case of Alejandro Valencia gave new meaning to such a standard. Mr. Valencia was pulled over in Los Angeles for a broken tail light on April 15, 2010. At the scene, he then consented to a search of his truck. A police officer searched the truck and found nothing. As Valencia had a few warrants related to outstanding traffic tickets, the officers took him in to the police station. One officer drove Valencia’s truck to the station as a courtesy, so that Valencia’s truck would not remain in the 45th Street area, which is a high-crime area.

Once the truck arrived at the station, another officer not at the arrest, searched the truck. This officer, Hofmeyer, found three grams of cocaine. This officer never asked Valencia to consent to a search and Valencia did not even know this officer was searching his truck.

Valencia was then charged in Downtown Los Angeles Superior Court with possession of cocaine for sales (Health and Safety Code § 11351). Valencia filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the second search of his truck exceeded the scope of his consent given back at the arrest location. Indeed, as phrased, “may I search your car?” limits the permission to search to just the person (“I”) seeking permission. The question was not “may I and any other officer in my department search your car?”

The trial court denied Valencia’s motion. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Valencia then pled no contest to possession of cocaine (Health & Safety Code § 11350(a)). The trial court suspended imposition of his sentence and placed Valencia on Prop 36 (Penal Code § 1210.1) for 18 months.

Valencia then appealed the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppress. The Second Appellate District, in People v. Valencia (2011 DJDAR 17647), agreed with the trial court on several grounds that merit our attention, as the facts in this case seem ripe for repetition. In fact, the same facts may have played out many times before, but the officer’s conduct was not challenged as Valencia did herer.

First, the appellate court noted that Valencia did not limit or withdraw his consent in any way, even though Valencia did not expect his truck to be taken to the police station. Rhetorically speaking, we wonder if police officers asked Valencia if he wanted to impose limits on the scope of his consent or withdraw his consent to search. We would bet he did not even know he could so limit or withdraw his consent.

The appellate court then acknowledged that there is no California case ruling on whether officers may conduct more than one search based on a single grant of consent. However, even Valencia’s counsel agreed that such could reasonably occur if the totality of the circumstances suggested it was intended within the scope of the consent.

Valencia’s counsel said the totality of the circumstances here did not allow multiple searches. The appellate court disagreed. It noted that Hofmeyer’s search was only about twenty minutes after the first search, Valencia did not have any increased expectation of privacy at the time of the second search (meaning consent would otherwise need to be received again) since he allowed one officer to drive his truck to the station and the contents of the car did not change from the time of the first search.

Consequently, Valencia’s appeal was denied and his conviction remained in place.

This article was written by Greg Hill. He has defended burglary cases in both state and federal court, as well as DUI’s, domestic violence and drug offenses all over the state of California. He is an attorney in Torrance, California and a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).


Insufficient Affidavit for Warrant Does Not Mean Search Is Always Invalid - California

The search of a home is always a hot issue, especially when the search uncovers items that could lead to years in prison. The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to each state, provides that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” As our U.S. Supreme Court said, the “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording, of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. S73, 585-586.

In March, 2010 Eureka Police obtained a warrant and searched the home of Robert Samuel French. The police found methamphetamine, psilocybin mushrooms, prescription pills, two syringes, marijuana, firearms and paraphernalia related to drug use and sales.

The warrant leading to the search was particularly troubling. The officer seeking the warrant wrote about a conversation he had about six months earlier, wherein an arrestee told him that he bought heroin from “a guy named Robert who lives on Summer Street.” Mr. French, in fact, lived on Summer Street. The officer then ran a registration check on a black truck parked outside French’s house and it showed the vehicle was registered to Robert Samuel French.

The same officer then spoke to a confidential informant who also stated that a person named Robert sold heroin and that he lived on Summer Street. A second confidential informant told the officer that a man named “Ron” sold heroin, that he lived on Summer Street and drove a black truck. The second informant said “Ron” was currently dealing drugs out of his house.

After the search of the home, the Humboldt County District Attorney’s office charged French with four felonies. Smith filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered pursuant to the search warrant, arguing that the informants lacked credibility, and therefore gave unreliable information as they were in custody on drug charges themselves. The trial court denied the motion and French appealed.

The first Appellate District in People v. French (2011 DJDAR 17906), agreed with French, but ultimately, however, affirmed the trial court on the grounds that the “Good Faith Exception” applied.

The First Appellate District first noted that a magistrate, before issuing a warrant, must establish the sufficiency of the informant’s reliability and the basis of knowledge, although there is no rigid formula for determining these factors. In French’s case, the court found there was no basis to assign “much weight to any of the informant’s statements.” None of the informants were reliable and none provided significant detail. Indeed, “information received from sources who are themselves the focus of pending criminal charges or investigations is inherently suspect.” Thus, the Court found that the search warrant was unsupported by probable cause.

The Court then discussed the Good Faith Exception to the Exclusionary Rule. The court commented that if an officer could have reasonably believed the warrant had probable cause, the evidence will not be suppressed. Here, the court found it was objectively reasonable for the officer to rely on the warrant, so the drugs and associated items remained admissible, but only by an exception. French, consequently, by this appeal, “won the battle, but lost the war.”

If you are arrested, do not trust your defense to an inexperienced lawyer. Greg Hill is an attorney in Torrance, California. He is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy (B.S., 1987), Boston University (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998). He is a former Marine aviator. Greg Hill & Associates represents clients in Torrance, Long Beach and the surrounding areas in many crimes, including but not limited to drug offenses, DUI, domestic violence and restraining orders. Visit the firm’s website at www.greghillassociates.com or the firm’s Facebook page. Or call us at (310) 782-2500.