Shaw

People v. Shaw

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 678·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3972·2002 Daily Journal DAR 4143·97 Cal. App. 4th 833·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3314
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 16, 2002D037859California2,323 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Paul Simon wrote that “one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.” This truism of apartment dwelling also means that what might be one person’s curtilage, in the context of a private single occupancy residence, becomes less subject to privacy expectations in the context of the grounds of a multi-unit apartment complex, as in this case.

It is upon this lowered expectation of privacy in a common area, as opposed to a private area, that we distinguish the case before us from People v. Camacho (2000) 23 Cal.4th 824 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 232 , 3 P.3d 878 ] (Cama cho), which held an intrusion by police into the curtilage of a residence violated the occupant’s legitimate privacy expectations.

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which was made first at the preliminary hearing and renewed in the superior court, Lorenzo Shaw was convicted by a jury of sale of cocaine base. Shaw argues on appeal the search which uncovered the drug was unlawful, his motion for a mistrial based on a witness’s statement should have been granted, and it was error to instruct the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.41.1. We find Shaw’s expectation of privacy in his discovered drug cache was not…

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.