Potter

People v. Potter

Good Law
128 Cal. App. 4th 611·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 610·2005 Daily Journal DAR 4441·27 Cal. Rptr. 3d 289·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3304
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 19, 2005D044290California3,379 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haller, J.

Christopher Potter pleaded guilty to one count of operating a “chop shop” (Veh. Code, § 10801). On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, contending the court erred in finding the search of an automobile repair shop was authorized by the warrantless administrative search provisions of section 2805. He argues the search was not authorized under section 2805 because the shop was not “open to the public” in the sense that customers were not invited onto the premises. We hold that there is no such open to the public requirement for a warrantless administrative search under section 2805. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Potter was an employee of Audio Excellence, a business that performed various automotive services including tire and suspension work, electronics, painting, and the repair and replacement of parts. Its principal place of business was in Bonita, but because the Bonita location lacked sufficient space, Audio Excellence rented property in Spring Valley where its employees could perform overflow work. The Spring Valley location was not intended for customers.…

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.