Britton

People v. Britton

Good Law
111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 199·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 676·2001 Daily Journal DAR 9243·91 Cal. App. 4th 1112·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7546
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 17, 2001G025710California1,960 words

Opinion

Opinion

Moore, J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5, Harold Lee Britton pleaded guilty to a charge under Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), for possession of heroin. He asserts the magistrate erred by permitting the prosecution to respond orally to his motion rather than requiring it to file and serve a timely written response, thereby violating his rights to due process and a fair trial. In addition, defendant maintains the trial court erroneously concluded the arresting police officer articulated adequate facts to justify a reasonable suspicion of defendant’s likely involvement in criminal wrongdoing sufficient to warrant his detention. We disagree with both assertions and affirm.

I

Facts

One afternoon, a uniformed Santa Ana Police Officer, Charles Lipton, responded to a dispatched call at a residence on South Daisy Street in Santa Ana. Lipton parked his cruiser at the curb and approached the house on foot. He noticed, among other things, that there was no furniture in the house, no shades or curtains in its windows, and no cars in the driveway. From these facts he surmised the home was vacant. Following a…

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.