People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
8 Cal. App. 5th 670
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joshua Corbett was arrested inside Sandra Bullock’s home on June 8, 2014 for stalking/burglary; he was unarmed and taken into custody.
- Police ran records showing Corbett was registered to eight firearms and served him an emergency protective order (officers used an outdated form that did not give clear firearms-relinquishment notice).
- Despite Corbett repeatedly invoking his right to remain silent during a custodial interrogation, detectives continued questioning him; he disclosed his home address, described gun safes, provided combinations, and (in an unrecorded portion) signed a consent-to-search form.
- Officers conducted a warrantless search of Corbett’s home on June 9 and seized firearms and ammunition (some later determined to be illegal automatic weapons), producing most of the firearms listed in registration.
- On June 10 police obtained a warrant to search a gun safe seen during the June 9 search; the warrant application relied heavily on information from the interrogation and the prior warrantless search.
- The trial court suppressed the evidence seized in the June 9 warrantless search; the People sought writ mandamus to overturn suppression, arguing inevitable discovery/independent source because a warrant was later obtained. The Court of Appeal denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Corbett’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence from the June 9 warrantless search is admissible under the inevitable discovery/independent source doctrines | The later June 10 warrant (and facts known before interrogation) show the items would inevitably or independently have been discovered, so suppression was improper | The June 9 search and the interrogation violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and the later warrant depended on tainted information; evidence must be suppressed | Evidence suppressed: People failed to prove inevitable discovery or an independent, untainted basis for the June 10 warrant |
| Whether Corbett’s statements and consent were admissible after he invoked Miranda rights | Statements/consent should validate search because police reasonably could obtain a warrant and later did so | Corbett unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent; interrogation continued in violation of Miranda, and consent was not voluntary/meaningful | Corbett’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated; statements and consent were inadmissible |
| Whether Penal Code §1524(a)(11) and emergency protective order justified a warrant absent proof of notice/opportunity to comply | Protective-order status and firearm-registration info authorized a warrant to seize firearms from residence | The protective order served did not give proper firearms-relinquishment notice and Corbett—while in custody—had no opportunity to comply; statute couldn’t justify the warrant here | Search warrant affidavit did not rely on an established §1524(a)(11) violation; notice/opportunity prongs were not met |
| Whether courts should excuse police failure to obtain a warrant when they had probable cause and later obtained a warrant | Existence of probable cause (and subsequent valid warrant) makes suppression unnecessary; later lawful warrant validates earlier discovery | Allowing that would eviscerate warrant requirement; later warrant cannot cure earlier constitutional violations when it depends on tainted information | Courts will not apply inevitable discovery to excuse an uninduced choice not to obtain a warrant; later warrant based on tainted info does not validate prior illegal search |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and right to cut off custodial questioning)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine requires proof that evidence would have been found by lawful means)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into a home is presumptively unreasonable)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source doctrine—warrant based on tainted information cannot validate prior illegal entry)
- United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016) (inevitable discovery does not excuse officers’ failure to obtain a warrant when they had probable cause)