Sandee

People v. Sandee

Good Law
15 Cal. App. 5th 294·2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 791·222 Cal. Rptr. 3d 858
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 2017D070732California4,925 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Irion, J.

*297 After the trial court denied a motion to suppress evidence, Megan Donna Sandee pled guilty to possession for sale of a controlled substance ( Health & Saf. Code, § 11378 ) and unauthorized possession of a controlled substance ( id ., § 11377, subd. (a)). The trial court granted felony probation to the court for a period of three years.

Sandee challenges the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of her cell phone. 1 According to Sandee, *298 although she was on probation at the time of the search and subject to a general search condition which allowed authorities to search her "property" and "personal effects" without a warrant, the scope of that search condition did not extend to a warrantless search of her cell phone. We conclude that the motion to suppress was properly denied, as a reasonable, objective person at the time of the search would understand a search of Sandee's cell phone to fall within the scope of the search conditions in her probation orders. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 23, 2015, San Diego County Sheriff's Department detectives were conducting…

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.