Lepeilbet

People v. Lepeilbet

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 372·4 Cal. App. 4th 1208·6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 371·92 Daily Journal DAR 3987·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2567
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 1992C008109California2,396 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

When officials have sought and been refused consent to inspect a premises for building, fire, safety, plumbing, electrical, health, labor or zoning violations, “notice that a[n inspection] warrant [Code of Civil Procedure section 1822.50 et seq.] has been issued must be given at least 24 hours before the warrant is executed, unless the judge [issuing the warrant] finds that immediate execution is reasonably necessary in the circumstances shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1822.56.)

This case presents the question whether failure to comply with the 24 hours’ notice requirement compels suppression of evidence seized during the inspection. While we do not condone such lack of compliance, we conclude the trial court correctly determined the 24 hours’ notice provision “is a procedural requirement and does not rise to the invasion of Fourth Amendment rights which would dictate a suppression of the evidence.”

Facts

After unsuccessfully attempting to get defendant’s consent to inspect, officers obtained an inspection warrant for defendant’s property (the premises), including two dwellings, a storage shed, a camper, numerous inoperable or dismantled vehicles, and piles of scrap,…

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.