Pearson

People v. Pearson

Good Law
169 Cal. App. 3d 319·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2000·215 Cal. Rptr. 147
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 14, 1985No. F004265California1,741 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Best, J.

This case presents the novel question of whether the holder of a post office box has a reasonable expectation of privacy as to his name and residential address. We will conclude that he does not and affirm the judgment below.

*321 The Case

Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of forgery and grand theft. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Patton State Hospital. Defendant appeals from the denial of his Penal Code section 1538.5 motion.

The Facts

Deputy Sheriff Jim Christopherson of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department owned two Union Oil Company credit cards. In January 1983, he received a bill from Union Oil in the amount of $569.88 for a Minolta camera and accessories. Having never purchased the camera nor given anyone else permission to do so, he contacted Union Oil and was sent a copy of the order form, which revealed that someone had forged his signature on the order form. A United Parcel Service document also supplied by Union Oil indicated that the camera had been shipped to the United Parcel Service office in Bakersfield, which in turn, notified the person who placed the order by…

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.