15 Cal.App.5th 294
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- In Sept. 2015, detectives stopped Megan Sandee biking after observing traffic violations near suspected narcotics activity; she told officers she was on probation and subject to a search condition.
- Deputies confirmed multiple misdemeanor probation orders requiring Sandee to "submit person, vehicle, place of residence, property, personal effects to search at any time with or without a warrant."
- Officers searched Sandee's backpack (finding a needle), photographed text messages from her cell phone, and recovered nearby methamphetamine; Sandee was arrested and charged with drug offenses.
- Sandee moved to suppress evidence from the phone; the trial court denied the motion, ruling the cell‑phone search fell within her probationary Fourth Amendment waiver.
- Sandee pled guilty to two counts, reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was granted probation; she appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general probation search condition permitting searches of "property" and "personal effects" authorizes a warrantless search of a cell phone | Search was lawful under probation waiver; a reasonable person would read "property/personal effects" to include a phone | Probation condition did not clearly and unambiguously include electronic device data; Riley and privacy interests distinguish phones from other property | The court held the objective‑reader test controls; at the time of the 2015 search a reasonable person would understand the terms to include a cell phone, so search valid |
| Whether post‑search statutory or case law (ECPA; In re I.V.; Ninth Circuit's Lara) should limit the probation search scope retroactively | ECPA and later cases show electronic data should be excluded; trial court should consider them at suppression hearing | The relevant test asks what a reasonable person would understand at the time of the search; ECPA and I.V. postdate the search and cannot narrow the pre‑existing waiver | The court rejected retroactive application of ECPA/I.V.; Ninth Circuit's Lara is unpersuasive because it uses a different balancing approach than California's consent‑based precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bravo, 43 Cal.3d 600 (objective, reasonable‑person test governs scope of probationary search waivers)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones carry substantial privacy interests; warrants normally required)
- U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (balancing approach to reasonableness of probation searches under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) (cell‑phone search under a probation term suppressed using a balancing analysis)
- People v. Woods, 21 Cal.4th 668 (California recognizes advance consent to warrantless probation searches subject to scope limits)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good‑faith exception for reliance on binding precedent)