Sanchez

People v. Sanchez

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 3d 720·172 Cal. Rptr. 290·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1538
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 11, 1981Crim. 35243California7,462 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Compton, J.

—Defendant Rafael Aguirre Sanchez was convicted of possession of one-half ounce or more of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; Pen. Code, § 1203.07) and of the sale of one-half ounce or more of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352; Pen. Code, § 1203.07). On appeal defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motions to quash two search warrants and to suppress the evidence found in his apartment. We affirm.

Facts

On October 3 or 4, 1978, Deputy Sheriff Jack Williams obtained a warrant to search George Anaya, his apartment, all storage and trash bins pertaining to his apartment, and “any vehicle under [his] control at the time [the] warrant is served” for heroin and narcotics’ paraphernalia. Williams’ affidavit submitted in support of the warrant, stated that on October 3 Williams had been contacted by a confidential reliable informant (a self-admitted heroin user) who told Williams that he/she had purchased “pieces” of heroin from a man named George Anaya at least 30 times during the preceding few months, that he/she- had purchased heroin from Anaya that very day, and that Anaya “always had pieces that he sold for one thousand dollars ($1,000).” The…

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

Fleming, J.

Concurring and Dissenting. — I concur in parts 1 and 2 of the court’s opinion but dissent from part 3 dealing with evidence obtained inside Arredondo’s apartment during the course of a warrantless entry and search.

Under the federal and state Constitutions (U.S. Const., IV Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13) a warrantless entry and search of dwelling premises is unreasonable per se, unless it can be justified by some well-established exception to the warrant requirement. (Vale v. Louisiana (1970) 399 U.S. 30, 34 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 409, 413 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 ]; People v. Haven (1963) 59 Cal.2d 713, 717 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 47 , 381 P.2d 927 ]; see also United States v. Chadwick (1977) 433 U.S. 1, 10-11 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 538, 547-548 , 97 S.Ct. 2476 ]; Chimel v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 752, 763-765 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 694-695 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 ].) The burden of justification is especially heavy when, as here, an intrusion into dwelling premises is made by police officers in civilian clothes (T-shirts and Levis) during the dead of night (see Pen. Code, § 1533; People v. Watson (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 592 [ 142 Cal.Rptr. 245 ]) and when those inside are not directly linked to suspected crime. At bench, the…

Opinion

Defendant Rafael Aguirre Sanchez was convicted of possession of one-half ounce or more of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; Pen. Code, § 1203.07) and of the sale of one-half ounce or more of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352; Pen. Code, § 1203.07). On appeal defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motions to quash two search warrants and to suppress the evidence found in his apartment. We affirm.

On October 3 or 4, 1978, Deputy Sheriff Jack Williams obtained a warrant to search George Anaya, his apartment, all storage and trash bins pertaining to his apartment, and "any vehicle under [his] control at the time [the] warrant is served" for heroin and narcotics' paraphernalia. Williams' affidavit submitted in support of the warrant, stated that on October 3 Williams had been contacted by a confidential reliable informant (a self-admitted heroin user) who told Williams that he/she had purchased "pieces" of heroin from a man named George Anaya at least 30 times during the preceding few months, that he/she. had purchased heroin from Anaya that very day, and that Anaya "always had pieces that he sold for one thousand dollars ($1,000)."…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.