Oldham

People v. Oldham

Bad Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 424·2000 Daily Journal DAR 5627·81 Cal. App. 4th 1·96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4219
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 2000D031986California6,025 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Charles Anthony Oldham’s motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 brought on the ground his father Charles Oldham, Sr. (Father), could not consent to a search of the bedroom defendant occupied in the apartment they shared and that, consistent with the holding of People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ] (Williams), Oldham cannot raise for the first time on appeal the issue of whether the police officers conducting the search had a good faith belief Father had the apparent authority to consent to a search of closed containers found in Oldham’s bedroom. Accepting the People’s concession discussed in part II, post, one of Oldham’s convictions must be reversed. As we explain below, we accordingly affirm in part and reverse in part with directions.

Factual and Procedural Background

On September 19, 1997, about 6:17 p.m., San Diego County sheriff’s deputies responded to a radio call of drug activity at an apartment in Vista, California. When they arrived, the deputies confronted Oldham outside of the apartment, where he consented to a search of his person, but…

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.