People v. Nguyen, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 525

Background

Detective identified an IP address used to share child pornography; Comcast traced the subscriber to Jennie Reynolds at 309 S. 23rd St., San José. A warrant described and authorized searching the single-story front residence and “any and all yards, garages, carports, outbuildings, storage areas and sheds assigned to the above-described premises.”
Google Maps and on-site observation showed a front house and a large separate rear structure ~25 feet behind it; officer believed it was a garage from the street view. The affidavit stated the person responsible could be anyone with access to the internet signal associated with the residence.
At execution, officers discovered Kevin Nguyen lived in the rear structure (a converted back unit with bedroom, kitchen, bath, separate entrance). Reynolds provided a key to an outer metal door but not the inner door; officers breached the inner door and entered the rear unit.
Police seized a laptop in the rear unit containing child pornography; they also seized evidence from the front house. Nguyen (a Mountain View police officer and the rear-unit resident) was charged with possession; he moved to suppress evidence from his unit as outside the warrant’s scope.
The trial court found the rear structure was a separate residence (not a garage/outbuilding), held the search exceeded the warrant and lacked probable cause/ good-faith basis, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the case. The Attorney General appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrant authorized searching Nguyen’s rear residence	Warrant’s terms (“garages,” “outbuildings”) and affidavit language about anyone with access to the residence’s internet signal authorized searching all buildings on the property	Rear unit was a separate residence not described in warrant; affidavit lacked facts connecting Nguyen or his unit to the suspect IP/network	Search exceeded warrant scope; rear unit was not covered and seizure suppressed
Whether affidavit established probable cause to search the rear unit	IP address tied to that property and statement that anyone with access to the residence’s internet signal could be responsible established probable cause to search all units on the premises	No evidence the front-house network extended to or was accessible from Nguyen’s unit (no signal test, no password info, no physical connection)	No probable cause to believe Nguyen’s unit accessed the suspect network; mere proximity/in-range wireless speculation insufficient
Whether officers reasonably relied in good faith on the warrant	Officers objectively relied on warrant language and reasonably interpreted rear structure as covered	Officers knew (or discovered before seizure) the rear unit was a separate residence and had no basis to believe it shared the network; under Garrison they should have stopped	Good-faith exception does not apply; officers should have ceased search once they knew it was a separate unit
Whether any exception (e.g., inevitable discovery, exigency) justified admission	N/A (prosecution argued good faith primarily)	N/A (defense opposing)	No other exception shown or argued on appeal; suppression affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Garrison v. United States, 480 U.S. 79 (warrant scope; officers must cease search when they learn warrant mistakenly includes separate unit)
Burrows v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 238 (warrant may not authorize search broader than supporting facts)
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of lawful search defined by object and places where evidence may be found)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (seizure unlawful if scope exceeds warrant or warrant exception)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause requires reasonably trustworthy information)
Jeffers v. Commonwealth, 62 Va.App. 151 (distinguishable: barn specifically included in warrant and physical connection supported search)