Stanley

People v. Stanley

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 614·72 Cal. App. 4th 1547·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89·99 Daily Journal DAR 6529·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5073
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1999B123700California2,463 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burke, J.

Jack Mace Stanley and David Singerman appeal from the judgment following guilty pleas to a charge of cultivating marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358.) Probation was granted on various terms and conditions including the service of 120 and 90 days in the county jail, respectively. Appellants contend the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress evidence.

We conclude that a search warrant was not required to install a surveillance meter to monitor consumption of electricity at Stanley’s house. We also conclude that the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained sufficient legally obtained information to provide probable cause. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellants’ motions to suppress.

Facts

About two months before Singerman and Stanley were arrested, an informant told Deputy Sheriff Lori Erickson that Singerman said he was illegally growing marijuana inside a residence in Ventura County. The informant accurately described Singerman and identified the make, model, and license number of the truck he drove. Erickson and another deputy followed Singerman from his home in North Hollywood to a house in Ventura owned by…

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.