Downing

People v. Downing

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 355·33 Cal. App. 4th 1641·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 176·95 Daily Journal DAR 4755·1995 WL 221914
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 1995D020943California7,345 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case we have explored the difficult question of the extent to which a police officer may rely upon computer-generated data furnished by the judicial system in carrying out searches and seizures. We conclude, consistent with the recent announcement by the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S._[ 131 L.Ed.2d 34 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 ], that where errors exist in such data based on mistakes made solely within the judicial system, the deterrent effect of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule will not be served by suppressing evidence seized in a search based on the “objectively reasonable’’ good faith reliance of a police officer on the data generated by the judicial branch of our government, even though that data is later found to be in error and the search is determined to be unlawful.

Preface

Russell John Downing was charged with possession of a destructive device “in and near a private habitation” (Pen. Code, § 12303.2) with a prior probation allegation after a homemade pipe bomb was seized from his bedroom during a warrantless search of his apartment pursuant to a Fourth Amendment probation waiver. The trial court granted his section…

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.