People v. Byers
6 Cal. App. 5th 856
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police surveilled an apartment without a warrant after learning a man (Brandon Wallace) who might live there had a DUI arrest warrant and was suspected of selling drugs.
- Officers detained and handcuffed Wallace in the parking lot; Wallace told Officer Gharah he lived in the apartment, admitted drugs and a gun were in his bedroom, and (according to Gharah) consented to a search of his bedroom.
- Officers went to the apartment, knocked and announced; defendant Byers was inside and refused consent to search his bedroom; officers entered, observed drug paraphernalia and powder in plain view on a kitchen table, and found additional items after securing a warrant.
- Byers moved to suppress evidence, arguing Wallace’s consent was coerced and that officers violated the knock-and-announce rule (depriving Byers of an opportunity to object at the door), warranting suppression under Georgia v. Randolph.
- The trial court denied suppression; Byers pleaded guilty to possession for sale and was sentenced to an upper term of four years (with other sentencing details). Byers appealed, also requesting independent review of the sealed Pitchess in-camera materials.
- The Court of Appeal held Wallace’s consent was voluntary, found the trial court abused discretion by excluding evidence about how long officers waited after knocking, but deemed the error harmless because suppression is not the proper remedy for a knock-and-announce violation here; the Pitchess ruling was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wallace’s consent to search voluntary? | Wallace voluntarily told officers about drugs and permitted a search; consent valid. | Consent was coerced due to detention, handcuffing, and surrounding officers. | Wallace’s consent was voluntary; court’s credibility finding for officer upheld. |
| Did the trial court err by excluding testimony about how long officers waited after knocking? | Exclusion was proper because consent by absent co-tenant permitted entry; manner of entry irrelevant. | Testimony about waiting time and weapons placement was relevant to knock-and-announce compliance. | Court abused its discretion by excluding that evidence; it was relevant. |
| If knock-and-announce violation occurred, should evidence be suppressed? | Suppression unnecessary; substantial compliance and other remedies suffice. | Violation prevented Byers from objecting at the door; under Randolph suppression is required when a present occupant objects. | Harmless error: suppression is not the appropriate remedy for knock-and-announce violations here (Hudson controls); exclusion of evidence would not be required. |
| Did the trial court properly conduct and resolve the Pitchess in-camera review? | Trial court followed Mooc procedures and adequately described documents examined. | Defense requested disclosure of officer personnel records; argued trial court erred in finding none discoverable. | No abuse of discretion; appellate court reviewed sealed transcript and affirmed trial court’s Pitchess ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (knock-and-announce is a factor in Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (exclusionary rule is not the appropriate remedy for knock-and-announce violations)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (present co-occupant’s objection at the threshold defeats another occupant’s consent)
- United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (reasonable wait time in drug cases measured by risk of imminent destruction of evidence)
- Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (no-knock entry justified when officer reasonably suspects danger, futility, or destruction of evidence)
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (co-occupant consent can validate warrantless entry absent present objection)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (consent by apparent authority can validate entry when officer reasonably believes authority exists)
- Duke v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 314 (California cases holding absent-occupant consent still subject to statutory knock-and-announce)
- People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668 (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; consent exception explained)