Hoxter

People v. Hoxter

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 891·75 Cal. App. 4th 406·89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 259·99 Daily Journal DAR 10355·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8138
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1999No. G022678California3,458 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bedsworth, J.

Following his unsuccessful motion to suppress evidence, Donald Lynn Hoxter pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale and admitted a prior conviction of a serious felony within the meaning of the three strikes law. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion because the police improperly relied on the consent of his 16-year-old daughter when they entered his home. He claims their subsequent search of his bedroom, though performed with his permission, was tainted fruit of the unlawful entry. We find to the contrary: After knocking, officers entered the residence legally, in response to his daughter’s invitation. Their actions were not only reasonable but legal, given the circumstances. We therefore uphold the ruling on the motion to suppress and affirm the judgment.

*409 After Hoxter failed to appear in court to answer charges in an unrelated case, a warrant issued for his arrest. Around eight o’clock on the evening of September 24, 1996, two Laguna Beach police officers in plain clothes stopped by his home to execute it. As they approached the front door, they met a man about 30 years old and asked if his name was “Don.” The man replied “No” but…

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.