Santana

People v. Santana

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 364·63 Cal. App. 2d 543·63 Cal. App. 4th 543·73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886·98 Daily Journal DAR 4231
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 1998D026056California2,086 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

After the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, David Santana pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana and was granted probation. He appeals, arguing officers conducted an unconstitutional search when they squeezed his luggage in order to facilitate smelling its contents. We conclude the officers’ conduct was proper.

Facts

On September 20, 1995, officers of the San Diego Airport Narcotics Task Force were watching the arrival of passengers for a flight that had been used on occasion by persons transporting drugs. Appellant checked two bags for the flight. While officers followed appellant to the departure gate, others followed his luggage to the baggage room.

In the baggage room an officer “poofed,” i.e., squeezed, appellant’s luggage. The officer smelled the expelled air and detected the aroma of fabric softener, a substance the officer knew was used to mask the smell of drugs. The officer called for a dog trained in detecting drugs. Appellant’s bags were put on baggage carts with other luggage. The dog sniffed the collected luggage and “alerted” on appellant’s bags, i.e., displayed a behavior indicating the presence of drugs. On the authority of a search warrant,…

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.