Brief Re Illegal Search and Seizure

1491 Words6 Pages
NO. 11-10101 CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT ______________________ THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ERNEST WRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ______________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DOCKET NUMBER: 12F06555 ______________________ RESPONSE BRIEF OF THE APPELLEE ______________________ Pre-Law Major REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE 2500 Someother Way, Suite 401 Sacramento, California 93721 Telephone: (916) 497-4000 Attorneys for Appellee TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... i Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ ii…show more content…
Then Officers HART and BETA got DEFENDANT into handcuffs. HART and BETA pulled the man to his feet and then led him out the front door to HART's police car. As they were seating the DEFENDANT in the car, Officers ABRAM, CALLING and DALE searched the house for children. Officer ABRAM also looked at the dining room table. On it, he saw a wallet. He took the wallet and opened it. Inside he saw the driver's license identifying the DEFENDANT as ERNEST WRONG. He also saw a plastic bindle with white powder in it. Officer ABRAM took the wallet outside to HART's police car. "Here's his wallet," ABRAM said, as he handed the wallet to HART. "He's not Batman." The white powder was tested and found to be methamphetamine, an illegal controlled substance. No little children were ever found in the house. The DEFENDANT was charged by the Sacramento County District Attorney with one felony count of possessing a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11377 (a). The DEFENDANT filed a Motion to Suppress under Penal Code § 1538.5 asking the court to suppress the seizure of the bindle in the DEFENDANT’s 2 wallet. Officers HART and ABRAMS testified to the facts above. DEFENDANT did not challenge the facts as set out, and he did not testify. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Officer ABRAM did not error in treating the apartment as though it were the same as a public area having just cause to enter the property and identify the perpetrator and obtain
Open Document