People v. Miles CA5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 23, 2015F068177California1,065 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

On November 10, 2012, at about 8:30 p.m., Officer Logue was on duty with his partner, Officer Kraft. They were doing a parole compliance check at the Parkland Hotel in Fresno. The hotel was commonly used to house parolees and it was in a high crime area. In preparation for the compliance check, the officers checked the parole database for parolees living at the Parkland Hotel. Multiple parolees came up and the officers randomly picked defendant. Then they checked another system and confirmed that he was on active parole. They also learned that he was being monitored by a GPS ankle monitor. The officers went to the hotel and contacted the clerk. They verified that defendant was leasing a particular room. Officer Logue testified that he did not have defendant under surveillance before the search, nor was he aware that defendant had broken any rules. He did not conduct parole searches of defendant on a daily basis. In fact, he did not recall ever contacting defendant before. This was a random parole search. Officer Kraft had conducted other parole searches at the hotel and had found parolees committing crimes. He believed approximately 75 parolees lived at the hotel at…

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.