People v. Erickson CA1/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 2014A141083California2,452 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

The pertinent facts were elicited at the suppression hearing conducted on November 6, 2013. Santa Rosa Police Officer Josh Medeiros testified that about 8:15 p.m. on May 18, 2013, while dressed in full uniform and accompanied by Officer Rhodes and an unidentified “civilian ride-along,” he went to 1170 Clover Avenue in Santa Rosa to contact appellant. Officer Medeiros believed appellant was on probation and knew he was a registered drug offender who used methamphetamine and heroin. Medeiros had not received any instructions from any law enforcement authority to contact appellant,

1 and was not aware appellant was currently using or had recently used or possessed any controlled substance. The sole reasons he initiated contact with appellant were that he “thought” he was on probation and had “done a number of probation contacts for Mr. Erickson at that very residence a number of times” in the past. Medeiros advised the dispatch officer of his intention to check on appellant, but did not ask him or anyone else whether appellant was still on probation. When he arrived at appellant’s residence, Medeiros did not see a “No Trespassing” sign across the street…

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.