People v. Cruz CA5
F069345
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 8, 2016Background
- On May 2, 2013, probation officers surveilling Jose Mojarro Cruz (on searchable felony probation for narcotics sales and a known gang member) encountered him outside a residence at 2643 Potomac Street; officers found $3,900 on Cruz.
- The front door of the Potomac residence was slightly ajar, lights were on, and Cruz was seen in the backyard at night in his gang’s territory; officers conducted a brief protective sweep and found items in plain view (mail and a dry-cleaning receipt bearing Cruz’s name) and suspected drugs on a microwave.
- After the sweep, officers conducted a probation search (based on Cruz’s probation status and facts linking him to the house) and seized additional drugs, over $100,000 in cash, a lease in his sister’s name, and an iPhone with photos placing Cruz and children in the house.
- Cruz moved to suppress evidence obtained during the protective sweep and subsequent searches; the trial court denied the motion, found Cruz had standing, and held the protective sweep and the later probation search lawful.
- Cruz pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale and appealed, arguing the protective sweep was unlawful; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Cruz have standing to challenge the search of the Potomac house? | The People argued Cruz could not show a reasonable expectation of privacy. | Cruz argued he had a legitimate expectation of privacy based on access/control of the residence. | Court held Cruz met his burden: totality of circumstances showed a reasonable expectation of privacy. |
| Was the protective sweep lawful? | The People argued officers had specific and articulable facts to reasonably suspect someone dangerous might be inside, justifying a cursory sweep. | Cruz argued the sweep was unlawful because it was done during a detention (not an arrest), lacked reasonable suspicion of an occupant and threat, and prolonged detention. | Court held the sweep lawful: protective sweeps can accompany detentions and officers had articulable facts (night, lights on, ajar door, gang territory, Cruz’s gang/probation status) to justify safety sweep. |
| Was the detention unreasonably prolonged by the sweep? | The People argued additional facts (gang membership, probation for narcotics, large cash) supported reasonable suspicion to detain and investigate. | Cruz argued discovery of $3,900 could not support prolonged detention absent more. | Court held detention was not unreasonably prolonged given totality of circumstances producing reasonable suspicion. |
| Were subsequent searches/seizures invalid as fruits of an unlawful sweep? | The People noted Cruz did not challenge seizures after the protective sweep (they were justified by probation status). | Cruz contended evidence discovered during the sweep tainted later searches. | Court affirmed that the sweep was lawful and, in any event, later probation search was justified by Cruz’s probationary status and evidence linking him to the house. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (Fourth Amendment rights are personal and standing requires a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (suppression may be urged only by those whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated)
- Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (burden on defendant to show legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 (standing requires expectation of privacy in invaded place or thing)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (distinguishing overnight guests from mere visitors for Fourth Amendment protection)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine: limited visual inspection when officers reasonably suspect danger)
- People v. Brendlin, 45 Cal.4th 262 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Celis, 33 Cal.4th 667 (discussing protective sweeps in detention contexts)