People v. Romeo
240 Cal. App. 4th 931
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police conducted a warrantless probation search of a home at 628 Walnut Ave where Randy Mills and Julie Bolstad were probationers; Officer Miller testified he confirmed their probation status via the ARIES database and prior personal contact.
- Joe Vincent Romeo was found in the attached garage (set up as living quarters); officers handcuffed and detained him during the search; methamphetamine and paraphernalia were discovered in plain view in the garage.
- While detained and after Miranda warnings, Romeo admitted the contraband was his; he later pled guilty to possession and appealed the denial of his suppression motion under Penal Code §1538.5.
- The central factual gap: the prosecution produced no probation orders or other objective proof of the specific terms/scope of Mills’s and Bolstad’s search conditions authorizing residential searches.
- The magistrate credited Officer Miller’s testimony that he knew of the probation search condition; the superior court denied the renewed suppression motion; the Court of Appeal reversed for failure to prove the scope of the probation search clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harvey–Madden requires proof beyond an officer’s testimony/ARIES printout to show advance knowledge of a probation search condition | ARIES and officer’s personal knowledge suffice to show the officers knew the probationers were subject to search | ARIES testimony is hearsay under Harvey–Madden and required independent proof of reliability and the probation terms | Officer Miller’s ARIES-based testimony was admissible for limited purpose under state hearsay exceptions, so Harvey–Madden did not bar admission here |
| Whether the People proved the existence and scope of a probation search clause authorizing a warrantless residential search | Officer Miller’s testimony that he knew the probation status and that the family used the garage meant the search was justified | The People failed to prove the specific terms/scope of the probation condition (no probation order or objective proof), so the search of the residence/garage was unjustified | Reversed: People failed to meet burden to show objectively reasonable authority to search the residence because scope of probation search was not proved |
| Whether a non‑probationer guest (Romeo) may be subjected to a residential probation search absent proof the residence fell within the scope of the probation clause | The presence of probationers at the residence limits Romeo’s privacy; detaining guests during a probation search is permissible | Non‑probationer guests retain privacy protections; justification must be tied to the probation clause scope | Court stressed heightened protection for third‑party guests; search cannot be validated post hoc by any occupant’s status without proof of scope |
| Whether the detention/handcuffing of Romeo during the search was reasonable | Department policy permits handcuffing during searches; the brief detention was permissible | 45‑minute handcuff detention was effectively a de facto arrest without probable cause | The court did not decide this issue on merits because it reversed based on failure to prove scope of probation search |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable)
- People v. Bravo, 43 Cal.3d 600 (Cal. 1987) (probation searches are consent‑based waivers limited by the terms of the probation condition)
- People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1999) (scope of a probation search is limited to the terms of the search clause; third‑party occupants have protections)
- People v. Robles, 23 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2000) (attached/adjacent garages can implicate Fourth Amendment privacy; searches require warrant or exception)
- People v. Jaime P., 40 Cal.4th 128 (Cal. 2006) (officer must have advance knowledge of probation search condition to justify a warrantless search)
- People v. Madden, 2 Cal.3d 1017 (Cal. 1970) (Harvey–Madden rule: prosecution must prove reliability of information received through official channels)
- People v. Harvey, 156 Cal.App.2d 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958) (early application of the rule limiting reliance on second‑hand official information)
- People v. Brown, 61 Cal.4th 968 (Cal. 2015) (reaffirmed Harvey–Madden principles regarding proof when official‑channel information is relied upon)
- Rios v. People, 193 Cal.App.4th 584 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (probation‑condition proof and recent officers’ observations can establish objective grounds for residential probation searches)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (good‑faith reliance on database errors may negate exclusionary remedy; not controlling on evidentiary sufficiency under Harvey–Madden)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule; distinguished from Harvey–Madden evidentiary demands)