People v. Bustillos CA3

DISCUSSION

I Search of the Purse Defendant first argues the search of her purse exceeded the scope allowable by virtue of her husband’s searchable parole status. As we shall explain, we find no error.

The standard governing our review of a trial court’s denial of a suppression motion is well established. (People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 924.) “ ‘We defer to the trial court’s factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.’ ” (Ibid.) As explained by our high court in People v. Schmitz (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909 at page 916: “Challenges to the admissibility of evidence obtained by a police search and seizure are reviewed under federal constitutional standards. [Citations.] A warrantless search is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless it is conducted pursuant to one of the few narrowly drawn exceptions to the constitutional requirement of a warrant.

3 [Citations.] California’s parole search clause is one of those exceptions.” Every parolee in California “is subject to search or seizure by a…