People v. Schmitz
55 Cal. 4th 909
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Deputy Mihai searched a car after learning the front seat passenger was on parole.
- Parole status triggered a parole search clause permitting warrantless searches.
- Contraband (syringe cap, two syringes in a chips bag, methamphetamine in shoes) was found in the backseat.
- Defendant driver challenged suppression; suppression hearing was held and suppression denied.
- Court of Appeal reversed, holding the parole status could not justify the backseat search; State Supreme Court reverses and clarifies scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is a parole-based vehicle search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? | Schmitz; officer knew parole status; search must be limited to parolee’s area. | Parole status does not authorize a broad backseat search; driver’s privacy protected. | Yes; search reasonable under totality of circumstances. |
| Scope of parole search in a car when a parolee is a passenger | Parolee’s status extends to areas the parolee could access. | Scope should be tightly tied to the parolee’s immediate reach/ownership. | Parole search may extend beyond the parolee’s person to areas in the passenger compartment likely used by the parolee. |
| May officer search personal property in the car if parolee could own or control it? | Officer may search items the parolee owns or can control. | Cannot presume ownership or control without evidence. | Yes; searches of chips bag and shoes reasonable if parolee could own or control them. |
| Does knowledge of the parole status need to be known before the search to be valid? | Knowledge of parole status is salient for reasonableness. | Reasonableness should be case-specific, not strictly knowledge-first. | Knowledge of parole status is a salient factor; not required to prove ownership. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (U.S. 2006) (parole searches upheld; high state's interest in supervision)
- Reyes v. California, 19 Cal.4th 743 (Cal. 1998) (parole search not arbitrary; totality of circumstances)
- Woods v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1999) (probation search; common authority over residence areas)
- Sanders v. California, 31 Cal.4th 318 (Cal. 2003) (cohabitants’ privacy with parole search condition; knowledge requirement)
- Robles v. California, 23 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2000) (cohabitants’ privacy; common/shared areas may be searched with probation/parole awareness)
- Belton v. United States, 453 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (limited warrantless search of passenger compartment incident to arrest (five-person car context))
- Gant v. United States, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (limits on automobile search incident to arrest; relevance to vehicle searches)
- Pringle v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (ownership/possession in car context; all occupants may share knowledge of contraband)
- Vermouth v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.App.3d 746 (Cal. App. 1971) (ownership/possession considerations in search of a purse)