United States v. Harriet Ann Impink, United States of America v. Richard D. Bolanos

Good Law
728 F.2d 1228·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24414
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 198483-5077, 83-5079California3,331 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Defendants appeal from a conviction to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance. They argue that they were subjected to an improper warrantless search, justified by neither consent nor exigent circumstances. Additionally, they contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Persuaded that the initial police entry was improper, we reverse on that ground and do not reach the sufficiency of the evidence issue.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 1982 Monique Guilbault leased a house in Jamul, California, to Richard Bola-nos. At the time of the lease, the parties orally agreed that Guilbault would be permitted to store a space heater in the garage adjacent to the house. At 4:00 p.m. on October 18, 1982, Guilbault and a friend, Edward Blinks, went to the property to retrieve the heater from the garage. While approaching the house, they looked through the partially opened garage door and noticed a variety of glasses, flasks, and burners. Guilbault and Blinks then sought permission to enter the house. Harriet Impink answered the door and invited them to enter. When Guilbault and Blinks hesitated momentarily, Impink told them…

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.