People v. Magee
194 Cal. App. 4th 178
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officers in an unmarked van in a high-crime area observed Magee flee toward a Mark Avenue house and enter it; he did not live there but had previously said the house belonged to his grandmother.
- Potts followed Magee inside through an unlocked screen door; the bathroom door was locked and Magee was seen leaning over a toilet flushing a bag containing suspected cocaine base.
- Potts attempted to retrieve the bag before it was flushed; a struggle ensued, Magee was handcuffed, and officers recovered a handgun, cash, and a gun magazine from the scene and car.
- A defense witness testified Magee had permission to enter the Mark Avenue house for social reasons and that he frequently visited without staying overnight.
- A magistrate granted a suppression motion as to the Mark Avenue house but denied suppression of other evidence; the information filed thereafter included counts for possession for sale and weapon enhancements.
- The trial court later granted the defense’s 995 motion, suppressing the Mark Avenue house evidence, prompting the People to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Magee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the Mark Avenue house at the time of entry | People: no legitimate expectation; entry was lawful despite lack of warrant. | Magee had a privacy stake as a social guest/occupant and thus standing to challenge the entry. | Magee had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house. |
| Whether Magee's status as a social guest established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bathroom | People: social guests may have privacy rights in host premises. | Magee’s presence as a guest does not establish privacy given the circumstances and purpose of entry. | No legitimate expectation of privacy in the bathroom under the totality of circumstances. |
| Whether Magee’s presence in the bathroom, while locked, changes the privacy analysis | People: locked bathroom carries heightened privacy rights that could affect suppression. | There was no nexus between bathroom use and privacy expectation given the context. | Bathroom privacy did not alter the result; no standing to suppress. |
| Whether social-guest privacy doctrine from Olson and Carter governs the result in this case | People: a social guest may have privacy protections under Carter/Olson. | No meaningful social-guest privacy connection given Magee’s flight from police and lack of social-visit purpose here. | Defendant's claimed social-guest privacy was not reasonable; no standing. |
| Whether any exigent circumstances or hot-pursuit justify the warrantless entry | People: hot pursuit or exigent circumstances could justify entry. | No applicable exigent-circumstances justification shown by the record. | No hot-pursuit or exigent circumstances supporting entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ayala, 23 Cal.4th 225 (2000) (defines legitimate expectation of privacy; subjective and objective components)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (status as a social visitor varies by circumstances)
- Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (economic/transactional presence affects privacy expectations; social-guest nuance)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) ( Fourth Amendment searches inside a home without a warrant presumptively unreasonable)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing and reasonable expectation of privacy require personal invasion)