Other Criminal Charges & Offenses Evidence Suppression

[Dylan33]

I had just gotten off work. I work near a high prostitution area. I'm sitting in my girlfriend's car waiting for her to arrive. I see the police stop a pickup and a prostitute gets out of the truck. The officers question the driver and let him go. They flash their lights in my direction and drive over to where I am. They ask my information and I give it to them. Everything checks out fine. I told them that I didn't have my ID on me. They asked if they could search me and I said No. They asked me if I was on probation and I said yes. They immediately bent me over the car and it was all over. I just found out that my probation order specifically states that I do not have a waiver of my 4th Amendment rights. During the officers search, they found fake ID on me. But they booked me on 484(E)(1) PC. This was because I had an ATM card in another name outside of the name I had given. After I had posted bail, I immediately filed a complaint against the officer. I now have private counsel instead of a PD. My counsel says that he can't argue the evidence suppression because I have a prior record. Verbatim from my attorney: "The officers' report appears to contain some lies, based on what you told me. But they will be believed before you and the motion to suppress may not be successful." What's more is that when they impounded my girfriend's car, they opened packages that were unopened and addressed to me. When I reported this to the impound company, they claimed this is the way they received the car and that I needed to contact the police to file a report. Go figure. Do I have a legal leg to stand on? Their case is based on evidence I consider being discovered after an illegal search. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[CdwJava]

What state is this?

I just found out that my probation order specifically states that I do not have a waiver of my 4th Amendment rights.

What?! Just what kind of probation were you on? Summary probation? Court Probation? Informal probation?

If this was formal probation, I would be very surprised to find that you did NOT have search conditions. CA has, perhaps, the most restrictive probation condition system in the country.

During the officers search, they found fake ID on me. But they booked me on 484(E)(1) PC.

I would almost think this was California ... but ... we don't HAVE a PC 484(e)(1). We have a 484e:

484e. (a) Every person who, with intent to defraud, sells,
transfers, or conveys, an access card, without the cardholder's or
issuer's consent, is guilty of grand theft.
(b) Every person, other than the issuer, who within any
consecutive 12-month period, acquires access cards issued in the
names of four or more persons which he or she has reason to know were
taken or retained under circumstances which constitute a violation
of subdivision (a), (c), or (d) is guilty of grand theft.
(c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, acquires or
retains possession of an access card without the cardholder's or
issuer's consent, with intent to use, sell, or transfer it to a
person other than the cardholder or issuer is guilty of petty theft.

And a 484(e):

484(e) Within 30 days after the lease or rental agreement has
expired, the owner shall make written demand for return of the
property so leased or rented. Notice addressed and mailed to the
lessee or renter at the address given at the time of the making of
the lease or rental agreement and to any other known address shall
constitute proper demand. Where the owner fails to make such written
demand the presumption created by subdivision (b) shall not apply.

I suspect that you were charged with PC 484e(c). If this happened in CA, that is.

After I had posted bail, I immediately filed a complaint against the officer.

For what? If he had reason to believe you were on probation with search conditions, then his actions can still be seen as reasonable even if a court later determines that the evidence be suppressed because you were not, in fact, ON searchable probation.

However, if you told him you were on probation and subject to search, then he will almost certainly be in the clear. Though I train officers to always confirm this fact with probation records before relying solely on the probationers word ... it's cleaner that way.

I now have private counsel instead of a PD. My counsel says that he can't argue the evidence suppression because I have a prior record. Verbatim from my attorney: "The officers' report appears to contain some lies, based on what you told me. But they will be believed before you and the motion to suppress may not be successful."

I like how he qualifies his opinion on "based on what you told me ..." In other words, if the officer's account is believed, you may be dead in the water.

I'm curious - why does the officer say he searched you? Did you advise you had search conditions? Did he confirm this with his dispatcher and then you later found that you did not have these conditions?

What's more is that when they impounded my girfriend's car, they opened packages that were unopened and addressed to me.

Case law permits the inventory of items contained within a vehicle impounded by law enforcement pursuant to a written impound policy. This impound can include containers both opened and unopened within the vehicle.

If this were in CA the likely authority used for the impound was CVC 22651(h) (driver arrested).

Their case is based on evidence I consider being discovered after an illegal search. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

What YOU consider to be the case is irrelevant. What the COURT considers to be the case will be entirely relevant.

Only your attorney can best advise you as he has all the facts including the officer's account of the events.

I still can't get past the fact that you might be on probation in CA without search stipulations! It happens, but it is rare ... unless on informal, court, and some juvenile probation.

- Carl

 

[dpbankert]

spam deleted

 

[CdwJava]

You replied to a 9 month old thread simply to advertise a web site and a legal theory that is entirely voluntary and in the realm of a civil issue?

The concept would never see the light of day in a criminal court (at least not in CA) so to post such a thing here is entirely irrelevant. Doubly so since the OP is long gone.

- Carl