Reed

People v. Reed

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 211·23 Cal. App. 4th 135·28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509·94 Daily Journal DAR 3228·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1809
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1994C015689California2,786 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

After the court denied her motion to suppress evidence, defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to two counts charging possession for sale of, respectively, cocaine and methamphetamine and admitted committing one of the crimes while on bail (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351, 11378; Pen. Code, § 12022.1). On appeal defendant, a Nevada probationer, contends the court erred in denying the suppression motion.

The issue on appeal is whether an unrestricted search condition in a Nevada probation order should be interpreted according to California or Nevada law where the probationer is supervised and the search conducted in California. We conclude that California law prevails. Therefore, we shall affirm.

In a suppression hearing before the magistrate, Deputy Sheriff Rubinoff testified that he and probation officer Fiak went to a residence on Forgotten Way in Paradise because they believed defendant, a probationer from the state of Nevada, resided there. Probation supervision of defendant had been transferred to California. Fiak was defendant’s probation officer and he had defendant’s Nevada probation documents. The officers went to the residence “to determine…

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.