Shepherd

People v. Shepherd

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 248·23 Cal. App. 4th 825·28 Cal. Rptr. 2d 458·94 Daily Journal DAR 3830·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2080
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1994C015921California1,099 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

We hold that a woman has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a purse left in a stolen car. Hence, she has no “standing” to contest a search of the purse by police officers.

Following the denial of her motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to a charge of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, former subd. 1.) Granted probation, defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying her suppression motion. We disagree and shall affirm.

Facts

The following facts are adduced from the transcript of the preliminary examination. In the late evening hours of November 27, 1992, El Dorado County Sheriff’s Deputy Murphy observed defendant and codefendant Harris standing in front of a Cameron Park liquor store. Harris was arrested on two outstanding traffic warrants. Murphy let defendant go when a warrant check on a false name she provided revealed no warrants.

In the early morning hours of November 28, 1992, El Dorado County Sheriff’s Deputy Kenneth Danielson observed a truck parked around the comer from the Cameron Park liquor store. He noticed the license plate on the front of the truck differed…

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.