People v. Murphy

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 546·5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 2004D040040California14,643 words

Opinion

Opinion

Defendant Mildred Murphy appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen.Code, [1] § 1538.5, subd. (m)) after having pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11378). Murphy contends that the police, in conducting a probation search of her house, failed to follow knock-notice requirements embodied in California law and, in so doing, violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that the search violated California knock-notice requirements and the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence must be suppressed.

At approximately 12:45 p.m. on November 7, 2001, following a citizen's complaint, Detective Alberto Santana of the San Diego County Sheriffs Department Street Narcotics Team (team) observed a woman leave Murphy's residence, get into a car and drive away. Santana suspected a drug transaction had taken place. He followed the car and stopped it. The woman admitted she had obtained methamphetamine from Murphy. Santana decided to conduct a probation search of Murphy's residence. [3] While Detective John Marlow was conducting surveillance of the residence, Santana developed an operational plan for…

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.