SEMINOFF

People v. SEMINOFF

Good Law
159 Cal. App. 4th 518·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 144·71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 582
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 2008G037484California4,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

Worth, J.

This is a case in which the trial court was confronted with a witness—appellant’s girlfriend and codefendant—who, after giving critical testimony in a suppression hearing, invoked her Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer crucial questions on cross-examination. The trial court struck her testimony and denied the Penal Code section 1538.5 motion based on the testimony of the police who participated in the search.

That is, obviously, a drastic sanction, and Anthony Douglas Seminoff appeals on the bases the court erred both in striking the testimony and in finding the search constitutionally sound. We find both contentions unmeritorious. The court’s sanction was reasonable under the circumstances, and the only testimony properly received on the motion supported the court’s approval of the search.

FACTS

On the morning of March 27, 2005, Bassett was staying at a Holiday Inn in Placentia. While she was sleeping in her room, her four-year-old son Timothy came down to the lobby and reported he was unable to wake his mother up. An employee of the hotel went up to the room and tried to awaken Bassett, but he was also unsuccessful.

Police Officer Brad Butts was dispatched…

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.