Triplett

People v. Triplett

Good Law
16 Cal. App. 4th 624·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 624·20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 225·93 Daily Journal DAR 7549·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4454
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 1993E010530California1,599 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

After being convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), the defendant appeals. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, Officer Hatfield of the Cathedral City police applied for and obtained a warrant for the search of the defendant’s apartment. When the warrant was executed on May 22, 1989, the police found: methamphetamine in the bedroom in a false electrical outlet (1 gram), in a brown vial (0.62 gram), in a plastic bag in an envelope (0.95 gram), and in a light fixture (57.13 grams); mail and bank statements addressed to the defendant at that address; bank books for accounts in the name of the defendant; pay-owe sheets reflecting sales in excess of $96,000; a scale and a vial funnel in a locked gun safe in the bedroom closet; small plastic bags; and four rifles, a carbine, a shotgun, and some ammunition, also locked in the safe.

At the defendant’s preliminary hearing, he moved to suppress the evidence seized from his apartment, on the ground that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued failed to show probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) That motion was…

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.