People v. Lazlo
206 Cal. App. 4th 1063
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lazio pleaded guilty to burglary and possession of methamphetamine for sale; imposition of sentence suspended and five-year probation imposed; probation revoked after arrest on new charges; suppression of evidence at preliminary/suppress motion occurred but the revocation relied on that evidence; trial court denied Lazio’s suppression challenge citing Proposition 8 and post-Prop 8 law; examining court affirmed probation modification and reinstatement with conditions and jail time credited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1538.5(d) barred using suppressed evidence at probation revocation | Lazio argues suppression applies to revocation proceedings | People relies on post-Proposition 8 law rejecting old Zimmerman rule | Prop. 8 abrogates Zimmerman; suppressed evidence admissible at revocation. |
| Whether Proposition 8 governs suppression in probation revocation hearings | Prop. 8 requires exclusion when not constitutionally mandated | Federal exclusionary rule governs; no violation if not shocking to conscience | Under Prop. 8, exclusionary rule does not apply if not mandated by federal Constitution; evidence admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerman v. State Eq. (1979), 100 Cal.App.3d 673 (Cal. App.3d 1979) (probation revocation hearing as a suppression-proceeding; exclusionary rule applied at revocation)
- Belleci v. People, 24 Cal.3d 879 (Cal. 1979) (Belleci’s rule on use of suppressed evidence at sentencing under §1538.5)
- Lance W. v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 873 (Cal. 1985) (Prop. 8 effects; federal exclusionary rule governs suppression analysis)
- Harrison v. Superior Court, 199 Cal.App.3d 803 (Cal. App. 3d 1988) (exclusionary rule not required in probation revocation absent egregious police conduct)
- People v. Nixon, 131 Cal.App.3d 687 (Cal. App. 1982) (discussion of exclusionary rule post-Prop. 8)
- People v. Williams, 20 Cal.4th 119 (Cal. 1999) (standard for suppression in search/seizure contexts)
- Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1998) (exclusionary rule not required in probation contexts unless federal standards dictate)