People v. Bustillos CA3
C090915
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 3, 2021Background
- Bustillos was charged with possession of methamphetamine for sale after parole agents searched the bedroom she shared with her parolee husband and found meth in her purse.
- Parole agents arrived while Bustillos was napping, asked her to leave the house for the search, and she left her purse in the bedroom.
- Agents found a lockbox under the bed; Bustillos either stated or was asked about the key, and the key was said to be in her purse (disputed whether she consented to retrieval).
- Agent Grace picked up the purse and testified that a baggie with a white substance was plainly visible on top when he lifted the purse; a meth pipe was also found in the shared bedroom.
- The trial court denied Bustillos’s suppression motion, finding the purse was in a shared bedroom and the drugs were visible when the purse was lifted. Bustillos pleaded no contest, received probation, and appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of suppression and directed correction of clerical errors in the minute/probation order (restitution amounts and improper inclusion of certain fees as probation conditions).
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Bustillos’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless retrieval/inspection of Bustillos’s purse exceeded the scope of a parole search of her husband’s residence | Purse was in a shared bedroom under parolee’s searchable area; agents reasonably inferred joint control; drugs were in plain view when purse was lifted | Purse was her distinct personal property and not jointly controlled; agents exceeded parole search scope and lacked consent | Denial of suppression affirmed: purse was in a shared bedroom and agents observed drugs in plain view upon lifting the purse; joint-control inferences supported searching common-area items |
| Whether Bustillos consented to agents retrieving the key from the purse | Agents testified Bustillos consented to retrieving the key | Bustillos denied consenting to retrieval (admitted consent to breaking box) | Court did not resolve consent issue; suppression denial upheld on shared-control/plain-view grounds |
| Whether the trial court’s minute/probation order contained reversible clerical errors | N/A | Not contested as a defense issue; appellant noted errors | Court directed correction of restitution fines to $300 each and removal of court operations/criminal conviction fees as probation conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Weaver, 26 Cal.4th 876 (review standard for suppression rulings)
- People v. Schmitz, 55 Cal.4th 909 (parole-search clause and warrantless searches)
- People v. Sanders, 31 Cal.4th 318 (searchable-parolee standard; cohabitants’ expectations)
- People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668 (limits on searching areas of residence in parole/probation searches)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (third-party consent/joint control rationale)
- People v. Smith, 95 Cal.App.4th 912 (items in shared bedroom may be jointly controlled)
- People v. Emri, 216 Cal.App.4th 277 (search of purse in a cluttered bedroom shared with parolee upheld)
- People v. Veronica, 107 Cal.App.3d 906 (search of distinctively personal item outside scope absent evidence of joint control)
- People v. Boyd, 224 Cal.App.3d 736 (reasonable suspicion standard for searching a gender-neutral handbag in jointly occupied space)
- People v. Robles, 23 Cal.4th 789 (differing expectations of privacy among cohabitants)
- People v. Kim, 193 Cal.App.4th 836 (fees must be separately imposed and not as probation conditions)