People v. Rios
193 Cal. App. 4th 584
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Rios pleaded no contest after suppression denial for firearm possession following a prior violent offense; he claimed Fourth Amendment violation and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to 12021.1 replacement by 12021.
- Probation officers conducted a warrantless home visit at R.R.'s residence, where R.R. was on probation with search terms; Rios was present during the visit.
- Officers entered without a warrant; the People asserted advance consent stemming from R.R.'s probation conditions.
- Rios was detained and subjected to a patdown, during which a handgun and a switchblade were recovered, prompting suppression issues.
- The appellate court assumed the entry lawful but evaluated the post-entry detention and seizure under Fourth Amendment standards; it distinguished between privacy interests of a visitor vs. occupant.
- Court discussed ineffective-assistance-of-counsel arguments and the availability of a certificate of probable cause for such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry into the residence violated Fourth Amendment limits. | Rios argues lack of proof of scope of probation search term. | Rios contends entry exceeded lawful scope due to uncertain search terms. | Entry presumed lawful; issue focuses on post-entry conduct. |
| Whether the detention and patsearch of Rios were lawful. | Rios asserts detention/search violated rights as a visitor. | Probation officers could detain and frisk for officer safety under Terry. | Detention and patsearch were reasonable under law. |
| Whether probation officers had statutory authority to detain/frisk a non-probationer on the premises. | Rios claims 830.5 limits juvenile probation officers’ authority. | Officers acted within 830.5(a)(1) to perform authorized duties. | Authority existed; actions within authorized duties; exclusionary rule not warranted. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not challenging the probation-condition scope; need for certificate of probable cause. | Failure to challenge scope assailed ineffective assistance. | No reversible deficiency; Matelski supports detention premise. | No ineffective assistance; certificate not required for this claim in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (entry into a home without a warrant presumptively unreasonable)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (consent presence requires resting on third-party authority)
- Bravo v. City of Pasadena, 43 Cal.3d 600 (Cal. 1987) (probation search conditions; scope can be determined from probation order)
- Matelski v. Superior Court, 82 Cal.App.4th 837 (Cal. App. 2000) (valid probation search; brief detention of others may be allowed for identity/connection determinations)
- Hannah v. Dhillon, 51 Cal.App.4th 1335 (Cal. App. 1996) (minimal intrusion balanced against government interests during probation searches)
- Glaser v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 1995) (limits on detention during searches and safety considerations)
- Summers (Michigan v. Summers), 452 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1981) (detention of occupants during warrant-based searches may be permissible)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; cannot challenge third-party privacy)
- In re Binh L., 5 Cal.App.4th 194 (Cal. App. 1992) (juvenile probation/search conditions must be tailored)
- People v. Miller, 124 Cal.App.4th 216 (Cal. App. 2004) (exclusionary rule scope when officer relied on valid probation conditions)