Pearl

People v. Pearl

Good Law
172 Cal. App. 4th 1280·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 509·92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 85
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 2009G041316California5,079 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

Introduction

William Michael Pearl challenges his conviction for one count each of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459 [count 1]) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a) [count 2]) on the ground the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during warrantless searches of his living space. The only justification ever offered by the prosecution for the warrantless searches was that Pearl was on parole and subject to a search condition when the searches were conducted.

We hold the prosecution failed to meet its burden imposed by California law and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution of establishing at the suppression hearing that Pearl was on parole when the warrantless searches were conducted. Penal Code section 3000, subdivision (b)(5) sets a maximum four-year period of parole, extended only by time in which the parolee was a fugitive from justice under Penal Code section 3064. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established Pearl was released from confinement and placed on parole on December 12, 2000. As a result, his parole expiration date, at the latest, would be December 11, 2004,…

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.