Hulland

People v. Hulland

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 4th 1646·2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 919·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1195·2003 D.A.R. 8799·2003 Daily Journal DAR 8799
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 6, 2003B160371California4,165 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perren, J.

A police officer purchases drugs from a defendant, then waits 52 days before seeking a warrant to search two residences where the defendant allegedly lives. When the defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained from the search, the trial court finds the warrant was based on stale information, but denies suppression on further finding that the officer executed the warrant in good faith.

Here we conclude that the officer, who both sought and executed the warrant, should have known that the stale information contained in his search warrant affidavit lacked the necessary indicia of probable cause. Knowing this, an objectively reasonable officer also would have known that he or she could not rely on the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant. Although the determination of staleness is always made on a case-by-case basis, the good faith exception only applies to those cases in which that determination presents a close question. Such a limitation on the application of the exception is necessary to avoid evisceration of the staleness doctrine.

Ricky Hulland appeals from the judgment following his no contest plea to possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359).…

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.