Brophy

People v. Brophy

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 546·5 Cal. App. 4th 932·7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 367·92 Daily Journal DAR 5400·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3523
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 23, 1992A052370California1,596 words

Opinion

Opinion

Poche, J.

Defendant, Jack Dean Brophy, appeals from a judgment of conviction entered upon his plea of nolo contendere to a single count of possessing methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained under six search warrants.

According to the affidavit submitted in support of the initial warrant, Detective Geaslin, a deputy sheriff for Sonoma County, talked by telephone with a postal inspector in Omaha, Nebraska at about 9:30 on the morning of June 21, 1989. The postal inspector told Detective Geaslin that earlier that day “he had intercepted a package at the Air Mail Facility” and “that he ‘profiled’ the package as possibly containing narcotics.” The postal inspector “opened the package and found that it contained four one ounce baggies and four one gram baggies containing . . . cocaine.” The return address given on the package was Jack’s Video Repair and Service, 2175 Gambels Way, Santa Rosa.

Having made the discovery of the illegal drugs, the postal inspector had arranged for a search warrant of the Omaha home. Somewhat later in the morning Detective Geaslin talked with…

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.