Crenshaw

People v. Crenshaw

Good Law
12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 172·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1152·9 Cal. App. 4th 1403·92 Daily Journal DAR 13217·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8106
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 1992F016523California4,341 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bianchi, J.

Introduction

This case presents the following question: Is a suspect’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches violated when, after the suspect gives an officer consent to search the interior, glove compartment and trunk of his vehicle for drugs, the officer removes a screw from a plastic door vent and disengages the vent?

Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress contraband found in the door panel on the ground, inter alia, his consent to search the car did not extend to removing the screw and disengaging the vent from the door post. The trial court denied the motion. The court cited Florida v. Jimeno (1991) 500 U.S. _ [ 114 L.Ed.2d 297 , 111 S.Ct. 1801 ] for the proposition it was objectively reasonable for the officer to conclude the defendant’s consent to a search of the interior of his car, glove compartment and trunk for drugs included consent to remove a suspicious door vent. Thereafter, defendant entered a guilty plea to certain of the charges stemming from the search; this appeal followed, raising the denial of the motion to suppress. (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, 1538.5, subd. (m).)

Facts Before the Trial Court on the Motion to Suppress

This…

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.