Mikesell

People v. Mikesell

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 632·46 Cal. App. 4th 1711·54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 708·96 Daily Journal DAR 7949·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4970
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 5, 1996C021215California2,769 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

Defendants Craig B. and Krista Mikesell were jointly charged in an information with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351).

Thereafter the defendants moved for an order in the superior court quashing the search warrant issued for their residence and suppressing all evidence seized as a result of execution of that warrant. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to suppress evidence seized from their home under the authority of the search warrant. Later the court dismissed the case because the People were unable to proceed without the evidence which had been suppressed.

The People appeal under the auspices of Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(7), contending the trial court erred by granting the defendants’ motion to suppress for the following reasons: (1) the information supplied by informants in the affidavit supporting the search warrant was sufficiently corroborated such that the affidavit established probable cause, and (2) in the alternative, the seized evidence should not be suppressed under the United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 [ 82 L.Ed.2d 677 ,…

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.