Cal.5th: Probation search term subject to GFE

A probation search term is a judicial act, and the probation officer is not expected to question it. Moreover, the breadth of the search term is subject to the good faith exception. One person has no standing to challenge a search term of another’s probation. People v. Rios, 193 Cal. App. 4th 584, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 96 (5th Dist. 2011):

Furthermore, any illegality in the probation condition itself would be attributable to the court that imposed the condition, and not to the probation officers. (See People v. Miller (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 216, 224 [21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 13].) “[W]hether a search is reasonable must be determined based upon the circumstances known to the officer when the search is conducted.” (People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 334 [2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 630, 73 P.3d 496].) As far as the officers in the present case knew, R.R. was subject to numerous terms and conditions, including search. Since R.R. was on an early release program and not some form of minimal supervision, we would not expect a probation officer to question the judgment of the court that imposed a search condition. (See Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480 U.S. 340, 349–350 [94 L. Ed. 2d 364, 107 S. Ct. 1160].) Under such circumstances, application of the exclusionary rule to suppress evidence would be unwarranted. (See ibid. [no application of exclusionary rule where officer acted in objectively reasonable reliance on statute later declared unconstitutional]; United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 920–922 [82 L. Ed. 2d 677, 104 S. Ct. 3405] [no application of exclusionary rule where officer acted in objectively reasonable reliance on search warrant later found to be invalid]; People v. Miller, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at pp. 222, 223–225 [evidence seized by law enforcement officers not to be suppressed if officers relied on objectively reasonable justification at time of seizure; facially-valid, court-imposed probation condition justifies search even if guilty plea resulting in probation grant vacated subsequent to search]; but see People v. Willis (2002) 28 Cal.4th 22, 35, 38–39 [120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 105, 46 P.3d 898] [exclusionary rule applies where source of error that led to unconstitutional search was part of law enforcement team].)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.